Preamble

The House met at half Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Revolutions of 1688–89 (Tercentenary)

Mr. Speaker: I have to report that the House attended Her Majesty this day in Westminster Hall with its Address, to which Her Majesty was pleased to give this most gracious answer:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
I thank you for the loyal dutiful Addresses which on your behalf the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker have presented to me on this tercentenary of the Glorious Revolution.
In celebrating the Glorious Revolution with you, I too give thanks to Almighty God and pray that we may here rededicate ourselves to the principle of freedom under the law which animated the authors of that constitutional settlement 300 years ago.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell me where the Labour party might be today, because it certainly does not seem to be in the Chamber?

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Chlorofluorocarbons

Mr. Faulds: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining the Government's response to the recommendations from the Government-appointed ozone review group of scientists; and, in particular, if the Government support that group's recommendations for an 85 per cent. cut in the output of chlorofluorocarbon gases.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): The Government will be studying the full report carefully as soon as it is available. In the meantime we have taken very careful note of the summary and its warning about the need to strengthen the Montreal protocol.

Mr. Faulds: For the first time in 23 years and four months I have question No. 1 on the Order Paper. I am delighted to ask the Minister whether he accepts that it is time that the Government realised that, despite their usual reluctance to take appropriate analysis and the necessary action, in the coming years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] No. I want to get my facts and figures right. Some of us like to be precise in what we say and not as vague as the Treasury Bench usually is. In the coming years there must

be an 85 per cent. cut in the output of chlorofluorocarbons just to stabilise the atmosphere. The Government really cannot daily dawdle any longer on this question.

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman having question No. 1 on the Order Paper, it is indeed a glorious revolution.
The hon. Gentleman will know that it is vital to ensure that we bring the protocol into force and, first and foremost, get as many countries as possible to sign it. It is most important that there is flexibility within the protocol to ensure that we can look at new scientific data and take tougher measures if they are required. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and, as a result of additional scientific research, tougher action may be considered.

Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than listening to the ritual kick at the chemical industry from the Labour party, he should encourage the industry to do the research to bring in the necessary products to replace chlorofluorocarbon gases? Will he take this opportunity to applaud the efforts of companies such as ISC in my constituency, which is trying to find such replacements, for the benefit of our people?

Mr. Moynihan: I recognise and applaud all those United Kingdom producers who are actively engaged in research and development work. It is essential that we give those companies time to test for the toxicity of the replacements. The Government have grant-aided a United Kingdom firm to develop a recovery and recycling process for the production of polyurethane foam.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Because of a lack of time the Minister was unable to respond to all the points raised in the debate the other night. Will he take this opportunity to tell us what his attitude is towards the so-called greenhouse effect, which will be caused by the depletion of the ozone layer? Does he believe the scientists who say that there will be tremendous problems in terms of food growth, diminishing water supplies, and so on? Does he take the matter seriously?

Mr. Moynihan: We certainly take seriously the scientific evidence on the greenhouse effect, but the hon. Lady will know that that covers a range of emissions, not just chlorofluorocarbons and halons. It is important that we consider the other emissions, which we are doing, not least through recent negotiations in the European Commission. I undertook to respond to all the points raised during the debate, and today I have cleared a four-page draft, which will be sent to all hon. Members who spoke in that debate.

Mr. John M. Taylor: If we are concerned about the upper atmosphere, can we not use our international influence to conserve the great rain forests from short-term privation? Will the Minister confirm that that is important?

Mr. Moynihan: That is important, and that is why the Overseas Development Administration is actively involved in projects to minimise the effects that have occurred as a result of the depletion of the rain forests. I welcome the ODA's initiative in that respect.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Minister accept that we have only one ozone layer and that, if it goes, as the policy makers and scientists at the Toronto conference in June said, we could have been gambling with an unintended


globally pervasive experiment, the ultimate consequences of which could be second only to a global nuclear war? We are talking about saving mankind from the destruction of the ozone layer. [Interruption.] We are certainly talking about recent significant increases in skin cancer, which have resulted from the depletion of the ozone layer. Why will the Government not accept the findings of their own appointed ozone review group of scientists, who say that an 85 per cent. reduction is needed? Will he confirm also that the Montreal protocol talked about a cut of only 35 per cent. in production and a 50 per cent. cut in consumption? Will he confirm also that we do not have to attack the chemical industry to want substitutes to be developed to replace CFCs?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that there is only one ozone layer. For that reason, it is important that the protocol has as many signatories as possible. To be too stringent and to lose major signatories, such as the Soviet Union, would be a great mistake. That is why it is essential, first, to get the protocol in place and then to ensure that within it there are review measures and appropriate machinery calling for more stringent measures when we need them. That is provided in the protocol.

Rating Reform

Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent estimate he has made of the number of people liable to pay the poll tax in Lewisham.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): Almost all of Lewisham's adult population of 179,000 will be subject to the personal community charge.

Ms. Ruddock: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency many households consist of three or more adults? Does he acknowledge that 99 per cent. of those households will be losers, even with the safety net masking the real effects of the poll tax, and that 74 per cent. of all the population of Lewisham will be losers? Will he take this opportunity today to show generosity of spirit for a change and reassure the 11,000 people with disabilities in Lewisham that he will accept the Lords amendments and give rebates of 100 per cent. to them?

Mr. Howard: I do not accept the figures given by the hon. Lady. They seem wholly to ignore the effect of rebates. It is through rebates that those who suffer from disability can best have their needs recognised in relation to their liability to the community charge.

Mr. Maples: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that what will most concern those 179,000 people will be the amount of the community charge in Lewisham when the safety net goes? Is he aware that one further year of rate capping has reduced that notional figure from £675 to £575? Does he agree that Lewisham council could easily find savings over the next five years to cut that by another £300, so that when the safety net goes the charge would be about £250?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If Lewisham and the ILEA spent what they should be spending to cater for the needs of their residents, the community charge in Lewisham would be £202 on the current year's figures, as it would be in every other local authority in the country.

Dr. Cunningham: Does the Minister accept the figures published by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently, which show that the average domestic rates bill per household or family in Lewisham is £575 per annum and that the poll tax for Lewisham is £577 per person? There can be no better exemplification of what a rotten deal for Lewisham the poll tax is.

Mr. Howard: The figure for Lewisham, with the safety net, is £320. The purpose of the safety net is to allow authorities, such as Lewisham, time to bring their spending down from the unjustifiable levels at which they presently spend.

Lead-free Petrol

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government are to consider the banning of two-star leaded petrol as part of their campaign to promote the use of lead-free petrol.

Mr. Moynihan: We continue to consider the banning of two-star leaded petrol, but our current policy is to use the market to secure the change to unleaded petrol. In his Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer adjusted the duty differential so that unleaded petrol is on sale at a price comfortably lower than both four-star and two-star leaded fuels. We are, however, carefully monitoring the uptake of the new fuel.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Minister aware of the success of the decision in West Germany, which has resulted in 25 per cent. fewer emissions and 2,000 fewer tonnes of pollution in the atmosphere? If the Government are serious about removing such pollution, instead of simply pleasing the big petrol companies, will they take a more realistic approach to excise duty than that displayed in the Budget? Will the hon. Gentleman make strong representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will know that the West Germans started from a 30 per cent. consumption level of two-star as opposed to 8 per cent. here. While the banning of two-star has been successful in West Germany, many of those who were previously using two-star leaded were queueing at the pumps for four-star leaded, so there is no direct correlation between banning two-star and moving across to unleaded patrol.

Mr. Squire: In conjunction with Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry, will my hon. Friend persuade car manufacturers to ensure that, at the point of sale, all vehicles for use in this country can take lead-free petrol rather than requiring adjustments as they do now, so that those who wish to drive on dirty fuel will pay for the privilege?

Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that all new models from 1990 onwards will be able to run on unleaded petrol.
I agree with my hon. Friend's second point about better information at the point of sale. We shall continue to do our best, with the campaign for lead-free air, to ensure that that objective is achieved.

New Towns (Planning Applications)

Mr. Batiste: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications for new towns he is aware of; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I am aware of some 15 planning applications for free-standing settlements which might involve more than 1,000 houses. We have made it clear that such proposals must be subject to normal planning procedures and must be considered within the framework of existing planning policies.

Mr. Batiste: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable concern that arises when rural areas are faced with a planning application for a substantial new town, because of the expense and the delay of the planning procedure. Will he attempt to short-circuit that process by issuing guidance on the scale of the development that he considers appropriate in rural areas that are not within the green belt?

Mr. Ridley: Local planning matters are for local planning authorities, unless the application is of national or regional importance and is subject to call-in or appeal. It is for the local people first to express a view through their district council. I issued guidance recently recommending the possibility of much smaller settlements than the one to which my hon. Friend refers as a way of rejuvenating life in the more rural areas.

Derelict Land

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policies he is considering to encourage the development of derelict land.

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reconsider the present arrangements and conditions concerning the making of derelict land grants.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I am maintaining support for the derelict land grant programme. Resources for 1988–89 stand at £77·4 million and priority is given to schemes for the reclamation of urban sites intended for private sector industrial, commercial or housing development.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend's Department establish a land use survey of all land, derelict and otherwise, that is developable? Should there not be a presumption against the development of green field sites on a county by county basis until all the developable land has been used?

Mr. Trippier: If my hon. Friend had substituted the words "green belt" for "green field site" I could have met his concern. There is such a thing as the national derelict land survey. I expect the preliminary report to come to me before the end of the year, and I hope to publish it early next year.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister acknowledge that the present regulations governing payment for derelict land militate against the recovery of land and the enhancement of the environment in colliery and coalfield areas such as mine, where 1,000 acres of land may be unimproved and

unrecovered? Will he look again at the hard use requirement under the existing regulations, to give areas such as mine a chance of a decent prospect?

Mr. Trippier: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, particularly about the Dearne valley part of his constituency. As a result of the representations that he and other hon. Members have recently made to me I am prepared to consider the after use criteria attached to the derelict land grant. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will he pleased to hear that I have announced today that there is to be an urban development grant of about £454,000 to support a housing programme scheme in the Rawmarsh part of his constituency.

Mr. Adley: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). He stressed the green belt versus green field site difference. From his reply, am I to assume that it is definitely not the policy of the Department of the Environment to encourage the development of new towns in existing green belts?

Mr. Trippier: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Minister aware that in the Civic Trust's report, entitled "Urban Wasteland Now," which is to be published tomorrow, there is a recommendation that the Government should commission an urgent study of the taxation of derelict land? With the abolition of rates, will the Minister seriously consider taxing derelict land, which people can hold idle at no cost to themselves, so that local and central Government can benefit from additional revenue to bring back life in the inner cities?

Mr. Trippier: I should not think that that proposal would meet with favour within the Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is wholly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. Friend aware of the proposal to tip 7·5 million tonnes of domestic waste from the cities of New York, Boston and Philadelphia on the derelict site at Arpley near Warrington new town? Is he further aware that it is entirely unacceptable that the north-west should be made the world's dustbin?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is aware that, in the first instance, that matter is the responsibility of the local authority, but he may draw comfort from the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport recently met a delegation. I understand that an announcement will be forthcoming in the near future.

Mr. O'Brien: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), the Minister said that he would look at the regulations and conditions that apply to the derelict land grant in mining areas. In view of the rapid rundown of the mining industry—the Minister is aware of the conditions that apply in the Wakefield area—will he ensure that there is sufficient finance to meet the needs of local authorities in areas in which, because of the mining industry, there has been extensive dereliction?

Mr. Trippier: When I replied to the substantive point made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) I referred to his and other representations. I included representations that were compellingly made to me by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues of all parties on the


local council. As a result, I am prepared to look again at the fairly narrow criteria that we have had in place for some years now regarding the soft or hard after use, which is within the criteria of DLG. I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I could not consider that matter until I had the initial results of the derelict land grant survey, which, as I said earlier, will be in my hands prior to Christmas.

Unused Public Land

Mr. Bevan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the draft planning circular regarding the development of unused public land.

Mr. Trippier: The draft planning policy guidance note on local plans were issued on 15 June. I have had very few representations so far. The consultation period continues until 10 August.

Mr. Bevan: In furtherance of the initiative for inner cities, and to assist in the continued refurbishment of the urban infrastructure, will my hon. Friend extend the directions, which now apply only to local authorities, to public utilities and Government bodies generally, so that they list their unused land and ensure that it is brought on to the market?

Mr. Trippier: I can reassure my hon. Friend. Under the inner cities initiative, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister six months ago, not only local authorities but public utilities and Government Departments should be responsible for maintaining and publishing records of unused and under-used land in their possession.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that such guidance to Government Departments should say that what is needed is not just money but facilities for young people? Does he accept also that the money spent on the Stranmillis training college ground at Shaw's Bridge could be better used on a sports complex in Northern Ireland, along the lines of Billy Bingham's imaginative scheme?

Mr. Trippier: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office. We must be specific about what we are discussing. We are talking about an audit, not only of land, but of buildings, supplied by local authorities and by other public utilities and Government Departments. The direction that it is within our power to issue is another matter, which we shall discuss later.

Mr. Alexander: Has my hon. Friend noticed the number of questions that are being tabled on this subject, showing the close interest in it—not least my question No. 62? Is he aware that a more robust attitude towards unused derelict land is likely to go a long way towards easing the housing shortage about which we all hear?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is right. It was for that precise reason that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the initiative on this audit of property owned by local authorities and other public bodies. We are conscious of the fact that many public bodies are land hoarders and are not pressed to bring that land back on to the market. That intention lies behind the new initiative, and we are determined to see it through.

Mr. Eastham: Why do we concentrate on land owned by local authorities and public bodies and never think about the private landowners, who often sterilise huge chunks of land which are over-priced and consequently never developed? That leaves many spots in major cities that could be developed. Why does the Minister not do something about that land as well?

Mr. Trippier: It would be extremely difficult for us to do that. The hon. Gentleman should think about his suggestion. His back garden would be regarded as private land. Is he suggesting that the Government should register all pieces of private land? That would be unthinkable, and certainly impracticable.

Local Authority Amenities

Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority swimming pools, sports halls and playing fields there are in England.

Mr. Moynihan: There are more than 1,030 local authority swimming pools, including school pools in full public use, and approximately 1,500 local authority sports halls. No figures are held centrally for playing fields.

Mr. Cook: Would the Minister care to comment on the fact that his borough, Lewisham, has described his proposals for the privatisation of these facilities as
bad for the public and retrograde for sport"?
Does he accept that his proposals are simply another means of trying to provide a source of profit for his friends in the City? Would he care to speculate on the effect that increased coaching fees, hire charges and rents would have on education authorities that use these facilities for their programmes?

Mr. Moynihan: This will not be the first time that I have strongly disagreed with Lewisham council. These proposals will yield better value for money for local authority expenditure. We shall have more effective management and better marketing of facilities and greater sensitivity to the community's needs.
As for pricing, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to have a closer look at the proposals, which clearly state that there will be discretionary powers allowing councillors to continue to set prices and to subsidise specific groups if they wish. That matter will be debated at length when the order is published.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Will my hon. Friend look into the practice of Haringey council, which is to close its open air swimming pools and allow the sites to be occupied by so-called gipsies, or travellers, much to the disturbance of the local population?

Mr. Moynihan: I greatly regret that my hon. Friend's council should have made such a priority in spending its resources. It is very important that local authorities up and down the country should continue to make provision for sport and recreation facilities and to make that provision a high priority.

Mr. Pike: Surely the Minister recognises that it is not true to say that local councils will have discretion on charging policies. They will be bound by other sections of the Local Government Act 1988 and they will be affected by the poll tax Bill, which we shall finalise later today. The Bill will force local authorities to increase charges—or at


least the people operating those facilities will put charges up. That will lead to reduced use and many people will be deprived of the sporting facilities that are now available.

Mr. Moynihan: I repeat that it is nonsense to suggest that prices will rise. Local authorities will continue to retain discretionary control over pricing, if they so wish. For the first time, local authorities will be required to identify the specific costs of operating their facilities. That must be good for the community charge payer and for the users of the facilities.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The need for sports facilities—which add greatly to the quality of life—is not in dispute. Is it not the case, however, that there is a world of difference between the capital cost of such provision and the cost of proper maintenance and use of them? Do not local authorities have a duty to recognise the revenue consequences of their capital investment and a duty to ensure continuing value for money?

Mr. Moynihan: Yes, they do.

Mr. Denis Howell: Will the Minister accept that, in addition to the figures that he has just given to the House, local authorities and the ratepayers have provided 650 athletic centres, 700 golf courses, 8,700 bowling greens and 33,000 tennis courts? Does it make any sense to prise away the management of 45,000 local authority sports facilities worth £5 billion to £6 billion? Has the Minister gone mad, or will he take away this ideological nonsense and assure the House that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will not impose his pricing on local authorities, as he is empowered to do under the recent Act? Can the Minister name a single local authority association in this country—Left, Right or Centre—which supports this nonsense?

Mr. Moynihan: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's list of different sporting facilities, the answer is that each and every one of them should benefit from competitive tendering for management contracts. When the right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to review the responses to the consultative exercise that we did on the proposal, he will note that 216 local authorities have now had their specific concerns eased by the provision of discretionary price control. Ninety one local authorities were concerned about the implications for disadvantaged groups, and their concern has gone as a result of discretionary price control. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the name of one local authority that supported the proposal. If he looks at the list in the Library he will find well over 200 authorities.

Building Societies Association

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Building Societies Association; and what was discussed.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning met the chairman of the Building Societies Association at the meeting of the committee on private finance for housing held on 14 July. The committee discussed various ways in which private finance could be introduced into the provision of public sector housing.

Mr. Cousins: The Secretary of State knows that his own bungling over housing and planning and the Chancellor's

bungling over interest rates have meant that 9 million home owners face a massive hike in housing costs starting next week. At least he can say—as the officers of Britain's largest building society said yesterday—that he feels sorry for new lenders in this position. When he is in Newcastle tomorrow, will he call at Ridley place, named after his ancestors, to explain to the people there why people with large mortgages get a subsidy organised from the extra paid by people with small mortgages?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman seems to be no more aware of the difference between lenders and borrowers than he is of the difference between losers and gainers. Perhaps he would like to look in Hansard and see what an extraordinary question he asked. As he knows, matters to do with mortgage interest relief are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Heddle: Did the chairman of the Building Societies Association acknowledge that more first-time buyers are realising their lifetime's ambition of home ownership than ever before? Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman the scourge of gazumping, and how practical and immediate steps might be taken to eliminate it? Is he not disturbed by the report of the Public Accounts Committee, published yesterday, that Land Registry delays are at an all-time high, and will he take immediate steps to ensure that all local authorities reply to requests for local searches and so reduce the delay in house purchase procedures as far as practicably possible?

Mr. Ridley: On my hon. Friend's first question, I am glad to be able to tell him that in 1979 the number of first-time buyers was 390,000, whereas last year it was 620,000. I can also tell him that in the first quarter of 1987 there were 34,000 fewer loan approvals for first-time buyers than in the first quarter of this year. The most up-to-date figures show a large increase in first-time buyers. I have nothing to say about gazumping on this occasion, and it was not discussed at the meeting to which I referred. I share my hon. Friend's concern about Land Registry delays, but they are a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State tell the building societies that the massive increase in interest rates facing those with mortgages is a direct result of the overheating of the economy triggered by this year's Budget package? What hopes does he hold out to the building societies of a more stable and even policy on interest rates in the future.

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir, I shall not be telling the building societies any such thing, nor would I dare to enter into territory that is not my responsibility but that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Yeo: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the Building Societies Association a problem felt acutely in my constituency, namely, the difficulties faced by people on average earnings who wish to become first-time buyers but cannot find a house at a price that they can afford? Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important contribution to solving the problem can be made by approving a slightly faster rate of residential development, especially in areas where there are plentiful employment opportunities?

Mr. Ridley: The figures that I have just given the House do not bear out my hon. Friend's assertion that fewer people are able to become first-time buyers. There has been


a phenomenal increase. However, I admire my hon. Friend's bravery in urging upon me that I should be more liberal in granting planning permissions in the south-east of England. Perhaps one reason for the current high level of house prices in those areas of the country is that I have not been as liberal as some people seem to suggest.

Mr. George Howarth: When the Secretary of State next meets the building societies, will he discuss with them the fears and difficulties that may arise with the introduction of mixed funding for housing association schemes? There is fear that because values in the inner cities and outer estates have fallen, but costs are high, that will prevent the introduction of housing association schemes for people in housing need. Will the Secretary of State discuss those difficulties, because there are real fears?

Mr. Ridley: Those problems have been discussed on many occasions with the building societies and others. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the proportion of private finance that is suitable for any given housing association scheme will be adjusted between the higher and lower figures. It is extraordinary for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that attracting private finance to supplement housing association grant can only mean that there will be less money in total for the provision of low-cost housing to rent, which I believe to be important, even if he does not.

Mr. Gow: As a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the truth that the surest way of curtailing inflation is to have interest rates at an appropriate level that will restrain inflation? Has he pointed out to the building societies an elementary truth—that one way in which we shall be able to halt the increase in house prices is to build more houses in those parts of the country in which people want to live?

Mr. Ridley: As one former Treasury Minister to another, I believe that it behoves neither of us to go far into the question of economic policy on an occasion such as this because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might feel that that would take us beyond the question. The other question asked by my hon. Friend can only be answered by saying that the supply of land for new housing must have a bearing on house prices. If there were to be no more planning permissions granted, at one extreme, or if there were to be an abandonment of planning control, at the other extreme, I cannot believe that there is anybody in the House who would not accept that that would have an effect on house prices, either up or down. There must be a connection.

Dr. Cunningham: Is it not a unique combination of achievements that the Secretary of State's policies have brought us to record homelessness, huge housing waiting lists, spiralling house prices, huge mortgage increases, and the return of Rachmanism and gazumping? Is that not failure just by any test but failure by every test? Before the Secretary of State replies, perhaps he will tell the House whether his reply has been drafted by Sir Alan Walters or by Bernard Ingham.

Mr. Ridley: My reply has been drafted by no one—nor do I accept the hon. Gentleman's premises. Those who do accept those premises, as the hon. Gentleman does, will perhaps deduce the obvious lesson, that we are pursuing a very tight land use planning policy.

Rating Reform

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning his latest estimate of the level of poll tax that would be payable in Coventry under the terms of the Local Government Finance Bill; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: None, Sir.

Mr. Nellist: Could that possibly be because people in Coventry are only just becoming aware that were this the first year of the operation of poll tax every adult would be paying £267; that 70 per cent. of all adults would be paying more; that of the 18 electoral wards in Coventry, residents would be paying more in 14 of them; and that those wards that will be hit the worst, such as St. Michael's, and Foleshill, are also those that have the highest unemployment, the worst housing, and the most overcrowding? Finally, may I give the Minister due notice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Could I give the Minister due notice that it is solidarity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Could I give the Minister due notice——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt)—[Interruption.] It sounded as if the hon. Gentleman used an interrogative term.

Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that points of order are taken after Question Time.

Mr. Holt: rose——

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I hope that he will not persist. He knows that, following the practice laid down——

Mr. Holt: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not persist in challenging my ruling or I shall have no alternative—[Interruption.] Order. This is a serious matter and I hope that hon. Members will recognise it as such. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point of order, he must do so at the end of Question Time.

Mr. Nellist: May I give the Minister due notice that, irrespective of what happens in today's deliberations, in solidarity with the mass campaign of non-payment, which has begun in Scotland and which will develop in England, Wales and Coventry——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone far enough. I call the Minister to answer.

Mr. Nellist: I will not pay the poll tax and I will advise my constituents not to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats——

Mr. Nellist: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I am on my feet, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not misleading his constituents. The report on which his assertions are based left rebates out of account. Even that report disclosed that two out of three households in Coventry will pay less in community charge than they presently pay in rates. Are those the benefits that the hon. Gentleman seeks to deny his constituents?

Mr. Oppenheim: Is it not true that Coventry is in a similar position to Derbyshire, in that the projected community charge is far higher than it needs to be because of the profligacy of the local authority?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When that profligacy is brought home to all the community charge payers of Derbyshire they will no doubt make full use of the remedies available to them at the ballot box.

Mr. Rooker: Did not the same report, so gleefully quoted by the Minister, point out that 51 per cent. of adults in Coventry will lose, before the £20 a head surcharge?

Mr. Howard: Since the report left rebates out of account, that finding is completely valueless.

Sports Facilities

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year since 1974 the annual amount of capital spending on sports facilities by (a) English local authorities, and (b) the Sports Council; and if he will give his estimate of private sector spending.

Mr. Moynihan: Over the period since 1974 the figures for English local authorities on an annual basis in millions of pounds are as follows: 84·2; 87·5; 74·8; 64·7; 48·4; 71·6; 100·7; 89·7; 122·5; 122·2; 191; 143·4 and 166. For the Sports Council, the figures are: 2·7; 3·4; 4·4; 4·4; 4; 7; 6·4; 7·3; 8·5; 13; 11·4; 9·5; 9·8 and 13·4.
As the hon. Gentleman will have calculated, the figures show a real terms increase in capital expenditure by English local authorities of 38·7 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1986–87 and a real terms increase of 25·7 per cent. by the Sports Council in the same period. Comparable figures are not available for private sector spending. Private sector sponsorship of sport has risen from £60 million in 1980–81 to an estimate of £200 million this year.

Mr. Fatchett: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, which he read with great feeling and understanding. May I suggest that those figures show that the public sector has invested in sport and recreation, and that it is because of the public sector that people in my constituency are able to use leisure centres, sports facilities and swimming pools? His lack of figures and his embarrassment about them show that the private sector has not invested. He and his ministerial colleagues now want to take the rich pickings from the public sector, together with the public sector's care and investment, and give those to the private sector so that it can make the profit and the public will lose as a result.

Mr. Moynihan: There is hardly a lack of figures, but the hon. Gentleman did not listen. If he had listened, he would have heard me say that private sector spending on the sponsorship of sport has risen from £60 million to £200 million over a period of eight years.

Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend will be aware that, from the end of this month, because of gross mismanagement, the Inner London education authority will be mothballing 250 acres of sports grounds, preventing the young people of London playing sport there. Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that ILEA will work with the local authorities, the Sports Council and the governing bodies of sport to keep those grounds open?

Mr. Moynihan: With my full support, an enormous amount of work is now going on with the local authorities and community-based organisations to achieve management arrangements for all the sites. Since the Sports Council entered the scene, it is now optimistic that it will shortly be possible to settle management arrangements for 10 of the sites and negotiations are continuing in respect of the other two. I am sure that my hon. Friend will celebrate that news.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that an increase in advertising at sports events by cigarette companies is no substitute for investment by the public sector? Does he accept that his figures show that the public sector, local authorities and the Sports Council have invested heavily in sports facilities that are open to all and that, through privatisation, he is handing over the rich pickings to the private sector so that it can come along and make a profit out of sport? [Interruption.] Conservative Members find the exploitation of profit-making out of sport and the barring of people on low incomes very amusing, but it is a matter of great concern to us.

Mr. Moynihan: Of course I recognise that both the Sports Council and local authorities have invested in ensuring that we promote sport-for-all policies. I welcome that, but it is wrong of the hon. Gentleman not to give full credit to the substantial amount of private sector involvement in sport and recreation, which is much to be celebrated.

Mr. Heffer: Where?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman asks, "Where?". He should look at the answer in Hansard.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some areas only one primary school in eight is teaching cricket, that the rest of the public sector is not picking up that problem and that we shall not win Test matches until something is done about that? Will he initiate a national scheme of coaching in the public sector, working together with the private sector, to do something about that, for the sake of the boys and girls of this country?

Mr. Moynihan: I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that the Kwik Cricket development has helped considerably, not least with regard to inner city projects, and that the initiative being taken by the Test and County Cricket Board and the Sports Council is much to be welcomed.

Simplified Planning Zones

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many simplified planning zones have been established in England and Wales since their introduction; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Trippier: The provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 1986, enabling local planning authorities to


prepare and adopt simplified planning zones, came into effect in November 1987. So far, six authorities in England and Wales are known to be preparing schemes and two of those are near to adoption.

Mr. Riddick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that simplified planning zones can help to cut out unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy and make a significant contribution to the regeneration of rundown urban areas? Will he tell me whether he has received an application from my council, Kirklees, and, if not, whether he would welcome such an application?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is well known as a strong and powerful advocate for this form of deregulation in that area of planning, and I compliment him on his tenacity.
I have not received an application from Kirklees council. I should certainly welcome it. If there were the slightest thought in the council's mind that it should not do so, because a Conservative Government introduced the scheme in the first place, I should tell it that the vast majority of applications that I have received so far have been from Labour-controlled authorities.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has not simplified planning in enterprise zones been a disaster in my constituency of Workington? Will the Minister comment on the fact that the only place in Britain where one can build houses freely without planning permission is in the Workington enterprise zone? Is that not disgraceful? Why have I repeatedly had to come back to the Government, and why have they repeatedly not taken any action?

Mr. Trippier: What is disgraceful is that the hon. Gentleman should castigate the enterprise zone in his constituency, when I know for a fact that it has been an unmitigated success. Having officially visited his constituency three times in the past 18 months, I can confirm that that enterprise zone has physically transformed the landscape and had a significant impact on reducing the level of unemployment.

Mr. Fallon: Is it not high time that England became a simplified planning zone, and is it not in the interests of objectors as well as applicants that we have a simplified and faster planning system in this country?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend's concerns could easily be met if I receive applications from every local authority in the land for simplified planning zone status.

Mr. Soley: Is the Minister thinking of making Horsham a simplified planning zone? Is he aware that Horsham seems to have taken that on itself by giving dispensation to Conservative councillors there to vote so that an empty council house is now used as offices for the Horsham Conservative Association? What is the Minister going to do about that? Does he agree that that is not only corruption but the theft of public property for the private gain of the Tory party? Will the Minister take this opportunity to condemn that action and ensure that the council is prevented from pursuing it?

Mr. Trippier: I am not aware of the specific instance that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If he thinks that that is in any way connected with the substantive question on the Order Paper, he is stretching credulity to breaking point.

Public Water Supplies (Aluminium)

Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has recently received regarding the current levels of aluminium contained in public water supplies; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people in Britain have water supplies with aluminium concentrations in excess of the European Community directive limit of 200 microgrammes per litre.

Mr. Ridley: I have received a number of representations following the publication of some alarmist press articles. However, medical advisers assure me that current aluminium concentrations in water supplies are not a danger to health. The European Community directive limit was set in relation to the appearance of water. It was not set on health grounds, and the 2 million people in England who receive water with aluminium concentrations above 200 microgrammes per litre are not at risk. Programmes of improvement for these supplies are nevertheless in hand.

Mr. French: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people who reside in areas where there is a high concentration of aluminium will welcome the news that he has given us in his answer? However, will he none the less agree to the establishment of an independent research facility to determine once and for all that there is no causal connection between aluminium in water and Alzheimer's disease, or does he believe that there is still a connection with drinking excess quantities of tea?

Mr. Ridley: There are a large number of alternative theories about the cause of Alzheimer's disease, but only one of that large number suggests a possible link with aluminium, and that theory has not yet been published. It has not been possible to study it because it has not been received. It might further reassure my hon. Friend and his constituents if I say that, on average, people in this country take in less than 5 per cent. of the aluminium that they take in during a year from their water supplies, and that the other 95 per cent. comes from sources such as food.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is so much metal in our water supplies these days that it brings a new meaning to the term "Iron Maiden"? Will he go through the list of those areas where there are identifiable levels of aluminium in the water supply and tell the House where they are? From my point of view, is Newham on the list?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot answer that question without notice, but I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman have any information that I have. The aluminium is put there as part of a process to kill microbiological organisms, which are far more dangerous than the aluminium salts.

Mr. Favell: The House will be glad to hear of the advice that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received from an expert body. Is he aware that two separate research studies have been carried out by eminent doctors in Southampton and Newcastle, which show a causal link between the aluminium content in water and


Alzheimer's disease, and possible clinical disorders? Will my right hon. Friend further examine this matter and perhaps make a statement, written or oral, at a later stage?

Mr. Ridley: As I have said already, the findings of the Southampton study have not yet been published. It is impossible to comment upon the study until its findings have been published and examined. My advisers will assess it when it is received. The reason for the European Community directive on this subject is to do with the appearance of water, which, with a large amount of aluminium salts in it, is rather unattractive for drinking purposes. The issue is not whether aluminium is dangerous to health. The issue is an appearance standard, not a health safeguard.

Mr. Boyes: The Secretary of State is being especially complacent on this issue, and he should stop misleading the House. There are almost 4 million people drinking water that is polluted by aluminium. Much research shows a relationship between Alzheimer's disease and brain damage. Action should be taken immediately. Money should be made available to make our drinking water safe to drink. The Government can find plenty of cash for other things.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is not right. He should be pleased with good news instead of calling it complacency

Question Time

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the middle of Question Time about four weeks ago, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) raised a point of order, which was conceded by Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker said that he could not rule whether a point of order was in order until he had heard it. He agreed that in those circumstances points of order could be raised during Question Time. In the light of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you like to reconsider your decision earlier this afternoon to refuse to allow me to raise a point of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I follow the usual practice of Mr. Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is not challenging my ruling.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the convenience and aural comfort of the House, could one of the colleagues of the Minister for Local Government teach the hon. and learned Gentleman how to use a microphone——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I think that the Minister does too. I think that the House will recognise that the Minister was getting slightly too close to the microphone.

Mr. Faulds: I have a point of order that I should like to pursue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister must not treat the thing like a lollipop.
I have another point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will remember that some many months ago now I raised with Mr. Speaker, when he was in the Chair, the need for the consideration of the introduction of emergency questions on the Order Paper. We have had a prime example today where, because of the set questions, we could not raise—some of us—a much more important and significant matter that has happened since the printing and putting down of questions. I have now had to suffer in my constituency——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Faulds: If I could finish my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would be understood.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is raising a matter of procedure and he knows that the way to pursue that is to make a reference to the Procedure Committee, when it is established. It is not a matter on which I can rule now.

Welsh Language (Ministerial Statement)

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are given to understand that a statement has been made by the Secretary of State for Wales. He visited my constituency earlier today and left to make a statement on a very emotive subject in Wales—the Welsh language and future Government legislation. Before you say that this is not a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you assure me and the House that a

request was made for the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement to the House about the argument that we had with him recently on another matter——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have gone far enough. Can the hon. Gentleman not tell that it is July? I have received no request for a statement to be made.

Conventions of the House

Sir Peter Hordern: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that an hon. Member dealing with another hon. Member's constituency should give the hon. Member due notice that he will mention it? In this case, is it not all the more reprehensible, considering that the offices of the Horsham Conservative Association are to be knocked down to make way for a road? It is not altogether surprising that the council is offering the Horsham Conservative Association other premises—[Interruption.] Is it not surprising that, as there are so few Labour supporters in the Horsham constituency, Labour Members are getting their facts wrong?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a convention of the House that when an hon. Member intends to refer to another hon. Member's constituency he so advises him.

Supplementary Questions

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During Question Time I tried to ask a supplementary question on question No. 10. There was some hub-bub in the House—not least from the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt)—when I attempted to ask a question beginning with the words, "Could I give the Minister due notice that I do not intend to pay the poll tax and that I intend to advise my constituents not to pay either?" Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, confirm that it was in order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I said at the time that I could detect the interrogatory form of what the hon. Gentleman was saying. If I appeared to reproach him, it was not on that ground, but on the length of his supplementary question and the fact that lengthy supplementary questions are asked at the expense of other hon. Members. Perhaps we can get on because we have a very busy day ahead.

Housing Action Trusts

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a housing action trust notice has been served on one of the council estates in my constituency, and since both the town clerk and the members concerned were given extremely late notice, am I entitled to put down now an emergency question to discuss the matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have no provision for emergency questions. The hon. Gentleman can ask a private notice question, provided that he follows the usual form and submits it at the usual time. It will then be a matter for the judgment of Mr. Speaker and his advisers.

Mr. Richard Holt: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a busy day ahead of us. I hope hon. Members will recognise that we have much work to do.

Mr. Holt: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it have been in order for me to table a question in relation to the point—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that some of these points of order are of a bogus character.

Mr. Holt: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is pushing me to the point where I shall have to have regard to his behaviour.

BILLS PRESENTED

HEALTH AUTHORITIES (DIRECT ELECTIONS)

Mr. Tony Lloyd, supported by Mr. Jim Cousins, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Ken Eastham and Ms. Joan Walley, presented a Bill to make provision for the direct election of members of regional and district health authorities and community health councils from among locally-registered electors: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 205.]

CARAVAN SITES ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Graham Bright, supported by Mr. John Carlisle, presented a Bill to amend the Caravan Sites Act 1968 by empowering local authorities or police officers to require the removal of caravans stationed in contravention of section 10 of that Act and for other purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

Railway Termini (Privatisation)

Mr. Roger Knapman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to privatise railway termini.
I am much encouraged in this respect by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who recently said:
We will privatise what we consider is sensible to privatise and what is ready to privatise.
It would seem that with British Steel and the water and electricity industries next in line for privatisation, the railways will have to wait their turn. It may be true that the railway industry is not quite ready to be privatised, at least as a whole, but it is certain that the railways require considerable investment at this time, and that investment could and should be raised from existing, sometimes under-used and certainly under-valued, assets.
In a recent article in the Fianancial Times, under the heading,
British Rail running on successful lines",
I noticed the following comments:
British Rail's record results in the year to the end of March reflect the boom in the economy and the upsurge in passenger traffic. They come at a time when its detailed performance is under scrutiny by the Government as it considers options, including privatisation, for the future ownership of the railways. The figures were further boosted by a cut in operating costs and higher productivity, higher Government grants and a record sale of assets, mainly property, which produced a gross cash contribution of £263 million to British Rail.
The sale of peripheral activities has been a great success. It includes the sale of Sealink and British Transport Hotels, and more recently of British Rail Engineering Ltd and the privatisation of certain catering activities. However, it is British Rail property that will raise the huge sums that are now required for reinvestment in the railway system. At present, such properties are dealt with in two main ways: first, the sale of surplus and redundant land; and, secondly, station trading.
With regard to the sale of surplus and redundant land, I was interested to note a recent written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who asked the Secretary of State for Transport
how much land, surplus to operational requirements, was owned by British Rail on 30 September 1987; and what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail concerning progress in selling such land.
The reply was:
I understand from the BR. Property Board that the total was some 17,300 acres. We have asked British Rail to dispose of all its surplus land and property as rapidly as possible.I discussed a variety of matters with the chairman of the BR Property Board in December, including progress in this area."—[Official Report, 19 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 699–700.]
Quite so.
It is relevant to compare the rail operating profits achieved last year of £109 million with the total of £184 million raised from the sale of properties last year.
I turn, secondly, to station trading, that is, the management of concourse-based retail outlets, which should net about £15 million in rental income this year. British Rail has long been in the business of leasing parts of stations to private sector undertakings, going back to the days of newspaper stands. This is now big business, at


least at the larger London stations, which have branches of many leading retailers. The scope for it depends to some extent on the size and layout of the stations concerned.
Waterloo and Victoria both have large concourses and plenty of room for non-railway activities. Paddington, Charing Cross and Cannon Street are all rather smaller and with rather less scope for such franchising. At Euston there are shops on British Rail property around the station, but relatively few inside it. I suspect that most opportunities are already being exploited as part of British Rail's general policy of getting maximum return from the properties it owns.
This is the crux of the matter. If British Rail can lease out parts of stations—that has been proved over many years—it must equally be possible to sell the terminus stations and lease back to British Rail the parts that it needs. Most commercial operations undertake the sale and leaseback of properties in that way, and in this case hundreds of millions of pounds could be raised with few complications and with no effect on the efficient running of the railways. In fact, quite the reverse in this case, because British Rail would at long last be asked to focus clearly on which assets it needs to own and which it does not. The receipts should then be made available and be better used for track or rolling stock, or what might be appropriately called this week the "railway core curriculum".
To bring that about an agreement would be reached with British Rail and, in due course, with others to define the areas needed for the efficient running of the railways. When that had been decided a payment would be made by British Rail, possibly on a per train or per passenger coach basis. In addition, British Rail would accept the liability to maintain the tracks, platforms and signalling equipment.
Secondly, a means of evaluation would be determined. It would, of course, be for each bidder to assess the appropriate figure for capitalisation of the incomes, whether actual or estimated, and to allow a figure for the prospects of future planning permission. Because British Rail would be paying for the usage of its part on a per train or a per coach basis, the income could be assessed and capitalised. The remainder of the properties already produce rental income, and those could also be capitalised. Therefore, an assessment of freehold value could readily be made, and I am sure that many offers would be received for the major properties.
The basic commercial observation must be that any organisation which trades at a loss would be expected to sell off assets either to meet that loss or to provide needed investment. The recently published annual accounts show that last year there was an increase of 8 per cent. in passenger volume. That was the highest figure since 1961. I am not at all surprised that that is the case in the London area, especially since the recent revelation that average motor speeds in central London at 8 mph compare unfavourably with speeds in the days of the horse and cart. No wonder that the chairman of British Rail was recently able to observe:
British Rail is in danger of becoming a victim of its own success.
The success to which he refers is attracting extra passengers, especially in the south-east.
Increased usage of the rail system highlights a certain and urgent necessity—increased investment. I recently asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

Transport how much British Rail had invested since 1979, and I am obliged to him for his reply, which was £3·7 billion. I understand that another £3 billion will be made available over the next five years or so. The sale of fixed assets, and in particular railway termini, is a promising extra source of finance to meet the increasing demands of the railway system.
The increasing needs of the railway system are no longer caused by an ever-increasing annual trading deficit, but are caused by the need for change, modernisation and capital expenditure within an expanding industry. My proposals will not interfere with the prospects of a properly integrated travel system. British Airways does not own, and does not need to own, Heathrow or Gatwick airports. By the same token, I suggest that British Rail does not need to own Paddington, King's Cross or Euston to conduct its business.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Corbyn: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) failed to tell us what powers he seeks to include in the Bill or what it is intended to do. He merely reiterated a litany of bits of property that he and his friends would like to grab in order to destroy or weaken the rail network. He showed a woeful ignorance of the history of the railway system and the railway industry. In case the hon. Gentleman is not aware of it, I can tell him that the railway system was built in an ad hoc way by private enterprise. That is why some of the lines run in the wrong places and why so many termini are badly placed.
Because of a lack of investment in the railway system, in 1947 the post-war Labour Government were forced to save the railways by nationalising them. Had they not done that and established for the first time a truly integrated transport system we would be in an awful mess today, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. There would be no rich pickings for him to try to grab.
The hon. Gentleman should also remember that the sale of British Transport Hotels, British Rail Engineering Ltd. and Sealink have two things in common. First, massive amounts of public money were invested in those services, which were then sold off to friends of the Tory party at knockdown prices so that they could make large profits. Secondly, large numbers of the workers in those industries were thrown on the dole. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) are in the Chamber, and in the House they represent the interests of the National Union of Railwaymen. They have fought strongly to preserve the jobs of railway workers, who are committed to a safe, efficient transport network. The Bill would cause the destruction of the integrated railway network that has developed since 1947.
It is clear that the hon. Member for Stroud has not examined the annual report of British Rail, because it shows that the financial performance of BR depends to a great extent on its ownership of the railway termini and of subsidiary facilities operating on trains or at stations, and that the £130 million surplus owes a great deal to those subsidiary facilities. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly


well that if he gives away the profitable bits of BR the public sector will be left to pick up the cost. In effect, public sector money has subsidised the facilities which the hon. Gentleman is trying to give away to the private sector.
The hon. Gentleman's proposals to give away Travellers Fare are interesting. The annual report fails to give a proper account of Travellers Fare. He is aware that last year Travellers Fare made a surplus of £7·5 million.
The hon. Gentleman also knows that his proposals to weaken, break up and privatise the rail system will mean that £3·7 billion of taxpayers' money, which has been given by the public to develop an integrated transport network, will pass into private hands. That will result in an inefficient transport system, higher fares and job losses.
I believe that the House should show the wisdom that it showed in 1947 when it established a unified transport system. If the rail network is broken up as a result of the piecemeal proposals put forward in the Bill, we will end up with a much weaker transport system and job losses. Frankly, all that has happened this afternoon is that a bunch of spivs have come into the Chamber to make a fast buck for their friends. They have come here to try to give away public assets so that their friends can make large profits.
I believe that we owe it to the people of this country to retain an integrated rail network, because it is safe, environmentally good, cheap and the best way to run a transport network. The hon. Gentleman and his supporters represent the antithesis of everything to do with social planning and the efficient and intelligent management of the economy. I hope that the House will reject the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 161.

Division No. 425]
[3.55


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amos, Alan
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fishburn, John Dudley


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forth, Eric


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gow, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butler, Chris
Holt, Richard


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Cash, William
Irvine, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Janman, Tim


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jessel, Toby


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Conway, Derek
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kilfedder, James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Curry, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knapman, Roger





Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rost, Peter


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, David (Dover)


McCrindle, Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shersby, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mans, Keith
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marland, Paul
Stanbrook, Ivor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Roger
Thorne, Neil


Monro, Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walden, George


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moss, Malcolm
Warren, Kenneth


Mudd, David
Watts, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wheeler, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Widdecombe, Ann


Paice, James
Wilkinson, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wilshire, David


Pawsey, James



Porter, David (Waveney)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Mr. David Nicholson and


Redwood, John
Mr. James Cran


Riddick, Graham





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fisher, Mark


Allen, Graham
Flannery, Martin


Alton, David
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Anderson, Donald
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Armstrong, Hilary
Foster, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fyfe, Maria


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Galbraith, Sam


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Galloway, George


Barron, Kevin
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Battle, John
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Beckett, Margaret
George, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bermingham, Gerald
Graham, Thomas


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boyes, Roland
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hardy, Peter


Buckley, George J.
Haynes, Frank


Caborn, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.


Callaghan, Jim
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John


Cartwright, John
Hood, Jimmy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Coleman, Donald
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Janner, Greville


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cousins, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Cryer, Bob
Lambie, David


Cummings, John
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leighton, Ron


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Terry


Darling, Alistair
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dixon, Don
Loyden, Eddie


Dobson, Frank
McAllion, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
McAvoy, Thomas


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McCartney, Ian


Eastham, Ken
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McKelvey, William


Fatchett, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, Kevin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Madden, Max


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mahon, Mrs Alice






Mallon, Seamus
Rowlands, Ted


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martlew, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maxton, John
Short, Clare


Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Rhodri
Spearing, Nigel


Morley, Elliott
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Strang, Gavin


O'Brien, William
Straw, Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Parry, Robert
Vaz, Keith


Patchett, Terry
Wall, Pat


Pike, Peter L.
Walley, Joan


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert N.


Primarolo, Dawn
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wigley, Dafydd


Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Redmond, Martin
Wilson, Brian


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Winnick, David


Reid, Dr John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Robertson, George



Robinson, Geoffrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Tony Banks and


Rooker, Jeff
Dr. John Marek


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Question accordingly negatived.

Local Government Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [22nd February], as varied by the Order of the House [13th April], be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting.

(2) The amendments shall be taken in the order shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of the Order [22nd February], each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE


Proceedings


Lords Amendments
Time for conclusion


Nos. 22, 1, 2, 207 to 217 and 3 to 21
6.00 pm


Nos. 171, 23 to 26 and 218 to 233
7.30 pm


Nos. 234 to 265, 27 to 80, 266 to 270, 81 to 87 and 271 to 277
9.15 pm


Nos. 88 to 91, 278 to 291, 92 to 114,292 and 293, 115 to 117,294, 118 to 170,172 to 185 and 295 to 334
10.15 pm


Nos. 335 to 408, 186 to 205, 409 to 414, 206 and 415
Midnight

(3) If this day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, is to be brought to a conclusion at this sitting shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
(i) put forthwith the question of any amendment moved by a minister of the crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;


(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall-—
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted at any time by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, is to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

I move this motion as the House comes to the end of a long and exhaustive consideration of a Bill that fully honours our election manifesto commitment to abolish domestic rates; to replace them with a community charge; and to introduce fairer and more stable arrangements for non-domestic rates and Government grant.

We shall shortly see scenes of synthetic outrage from the Opposition Members about the time that is allowed for consideration of these Lords amendments, so I want to start by getting some facts on the record. The Bill has already been debated in the House for two days on Second Reading; 147 hours in 35 sittings in Committee; and no fewer than five days on Report and Third Reading—a total of 190 hours before today. Although it has been guillotined, we have used the timetable procedure not to impose unreasonable constraints on debate, but to allow for a sensible allocation of time to the different elements of the Bill. Consideration of part I was virtually complete before the timetable motion was moved. Therefore, we have not curtailed debate on the most novel and controversial part of the Bill.

The Bill has also been examined in great detail during almost 90 hours of debate on 13 days in another place. It simply is not possible to argue that the Bill has not been fully considered. Throughout all that debate, the Government have listened carefully to all the reasonable arguments put to them and promised a number of significant concessions that have required changes to the Bill. Indeed, Lord McIntosh, who speaks for the Labour party in another place, paid tribute to my noble Friend Lord Caithness and his colleagues by saying:
There has not been a single time in our consideration of the Bill when we have had occasion to doubt their sincerity or their willingness to listen."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 13 July 1988, Vol. 499, c. 910.]

So, of course there are changes to the Bill, but it is ludicrous to suggest, as did the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) last Thursday, that the Bill has been
changed almost beyond recognition by the Lords".—[Official Report, 14 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 557.]

Mr. John Maxton: The Minister keeps mentioning changes to a Bill, but a large number of the amendments—more than 100—that we shall be debating in an hour and a half at the very end relate not to changes to a Bill, but changes to an Act of Parliament. The Abolition of Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 is already on the statute book, and is in the process of being implemented, but here are 100 amendments that Scottish local authorities have to implement not in 1990, but in six months' time. Is it not an absolute disgrace that amendments concerning the people of Scotland, who rejected the Government in this matter, are now being pushed to the end of a very short debate?

Mr. Howard: Perhaps when we reach those amendments to the Scottish legislation the hon. Gentleman will tell the House to which of those amendments he and his party object. The Labour party has tabled no amendments that suggest that it objects to them. That will no doubt be considered when we reach the Scottish part of the business.
When they considered the matters rather than taking the view that was put last Thursday by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, Members on both sides of the other place accepted that the principle of the Bill remains intact. The Opposition know that their prolonged and persistent attempts to sabotage the Bill have met with complete failure.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that 66 pages of new amendments to a Bill of 150 pages is not a substantial change?

Mr. Howard: As I shall show, that is a pathetic argument. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will no doubt tell us about the 417 amendments and the average time available to deal with each of them. That is about as intelligent an approach to these matters as judging a work of art by the number of brush strokes on the canvas.
Of the 417 amendments, well over half—243, to be precise—were accepted in another place as technical or drafting improvements to the Bill. I look forward to hearing from Opposition Members which of those amendments they object to. For example, do they want to oppose the exemption from the community charge for the severely mentally handicapped, the homeless, voluntary care workers, or those who stay in short-stay hostels? Do they wish to challenge the major extension of charitable rating relief or the improved treatment of caravans? Perhaps they wish to restore joint and several liability for the collective community charge, but I rather doubt it.

Mr. John Home Robertson: That is the biggest load of humbug that I have ever heard in this House, and I have heard a great deal from the Minister. He is saying that he wants to hear what Opposition Members have to say about all the amendments. How can he possibly hear what Opposition Members or anybody else may have to say about them when the guillotine motion ensures that it will be impossible to discuss even a fraction of them?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is an acknowledged expert on humbug. For the most part, the amendments were warmly welcomed by the Opposition in another place. We know exactly the Opposition's attitude to the amendments. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us in due course that Opposition Members intend to oppose the deletion of part IV—23 clauses and three schedules—from the Bill, but I doubt it. We took the decision in response to representations from, among others, the Labour-controlled Association of London Authorities. In fact, if one reads the amendments, one finds that they were almost universally welcomed by Opposition spokesmen in another place, who had ample opportunity to debate them.
Perhaps the best test of the extent to which the Opposition really need time for debate and of whether the complaints that we shall doubtless hear are genuine is to be found in the number of amendments that Opposition Members have tabled. Are they so dissatisfied with the Lords amendments that they have tabled countless amendments of their own? Not a bit of it. Opposition Members have tabled a grand total of three amendments. Of those three amendments, in his wisdom, Mr. Speaker selected two. We shall have ample time to debate those two amendments.

Mr. Brian Wilson: How many amendments did Opposition Members move in Committee and how many met with any success against the Government?

Mr. Howard: I am afraid I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Richard Holt: I advise my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that Mr. Speaker recently ruled that if hon. Members were not present during the presentation of a Minister's speech they would not be called or seen. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I call the Minister.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). I always welcome interventions from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I always welcomed them in Committee, and I hope that I continue to welcome them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose——

Mr. Howard: I have not yet answered the point raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North; the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) should contain himself.
The total lack of success that Opposition Members met with in Standing Committee is something that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North may regret, but it has absolutely nothing to do with today's business, which is consideration of Lords amendments. Once the hon. Gentleman grasps that elemental fact, he will appreciate how misconceived his question was.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that, when he described amendments to the Lords amendments that were tabled today as Opposition amendments totalling three, he was referring to Labour amendments? My hon. Friends and I have tabled 15 amendments—five times as many as the Labour party have tabled.

Mr. Howard: The contribution of the party that the hon. Gentleman represents had not escaped me. It is characteristic of his party's contribution. It comprises all that clarity of mind and precision that we have come to expect from that party. The vast majority of the hon. Gentleman's amendments simply state that they disagree with the Lords in the amendments.
Opposition Members will oppose the motion not because they want to debate the drafting of the amendments but because they want to delay enactment of the Bill until the autumn. That is why they seek to delay progress today. We cannot accept that. We have promised that domestic rates will be abolished on 1 April 1990, and we keep our promises. If that objective is to be achieved, the local authorities that are to implement it must know where they stand. This is not a Bill that can take effect overnight. An enormous amount of preparation and planning must take place first. Most local authorities are already making good progress. They will soon have to commit themselves to the purchase of computer and other hardware. Computer software designers must get clear instructions about the systems that they are to develop. That means that the detailed regulations must be drafted and consulted on as soon as possible in the autumn.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Some of us heard the Minister on the radio talking with Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who is a man of clear mind. Could he explain—there may be an explanation—his answer to the argument of Lord Allen and others about the blind and disabled? The Minister was referring to details. It is important to clarify the point, as we may have got him wrong. We did not quite understand his answer to Philip Allen's point.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the substantive debate on this issue, which will take place


in a short time. He will have the opportunity to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will deal with that issue when the House considers it.
Community charge registration officers will be under a duty to establish their registers by 1 December next year. That is not a date that can be changed, and, if it is to be met, canvassing will have to take place in the spring and early summer of next year. That in turn will require staff, equipment and systems to be in place.
This major reform was first proposed in January 1986. It was put to the electorate in June last year. It has been debated in detail in Parliament and outside for eight months. The time has now come to deal with the few remaining issues, to move into the next phase of preparation, and to put an end to uncertainty.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: The motion is totally unnecessary for a Government with a majority of over 100 in the first Session of a Parliament. It insults the whole House of Commons. It shows the nation that the Government are operating as though they own the House of Commons. The motion is an offence to the Chair and the learned Clerks. It corrupts the law-making process and will thereby bring the law into contempt. Frankly, the motion demeans the Minister who moved it, and it degrades hon. Members who were whipped in to support it.
That it is unprecedented is beyond question, in regard to a Bill that is guillotined with so much new material and so many amendments from another place. There is not enough time for the Chair to read out the amendments and put the relevant Questions even if we start now and continue until midnight. It is a jackboot motion, the likes of which were familiar under Hitler and Stalin, and, today, under Botha.
We have one parliamentary day to consider items some of which have never been considered or discussed in the House. That shows the arrogance of the power with which the Government operate. In fact, the process is so hasty that the Government not only spent time and money on Saturday scurrying around the homes of Opposition Front Bench Members with printer's proofs of the amendments, but, today, they gave us corrections to the amendments from the Lords.
The Minister had the brass face to say that the Opposition had not tabled many amendments. Members of the House of Commons were given one parliamentary day to look at the Government's amendments and no time to table amendments. Any amendment that we tabled yesterday would have been starred as out of order. We have been given one day—seven hours—to consider more than 400 amendments. What is the use of the Opposition and our advisers spending hours drafting amendments to Lords amendments when we shall not even get the chance because of the guillotine to vote against those amendments that we oppose? That is ludicrous. Today we have been given correction slips. That is not just pathetic; what is happening in this place today is damned dangerous.
We cannot even fully list the items with which we shall not deal today, such as the changes in registration, and in respect of joint and several liability, hostels, co-owners, installments, the appeal procedure, levying boards and financial administration. Also, there is the lack of rate

relief for sports clubs in England and Wales. We would try to get a similar concession to that given to such clubs in Scotland.
We shall not even have the chance to debate the Government's continuing inability, as identified in Lords amendment No. 283, to decide how they will count the population. That information is crucial for the redistribution of Government grant and the business rate. In February this year, at the Standing Committee's second or third sitting, the Minister said that this was under active consideration. There have been hundreds of Government amendments in Committee and on Report and there are hundreds more Lords amendments, yet we still do not know how the Government will count the population.
There is no time to debate this matter. The Government could easily have provided two or even three ordinary House of Commons days which the Opposition would consider reasonable in the circumstances. We do not like the Bill. We do not want it to operate. We seek to oppose it at every opportunity, and we make no apology for that. I presume that the Government do not wish to take that right from us, although they are taking away everything else. Two or three ordinary House of Commons days would have been a reasonable time, in view of what we face, to consider the material that the Lords have put into the Bill.
We have just cause for complaint on this matter, which will cause our proceedings to fester for some time to come. The Opposition have no intention of providing any cloak of respectability for Her Majesty's Government who, in most other democratic countries, would have hit the buffer of constitutional checks and balances on this issue. No checks and balances are operating. Even now, in late July, it is known that somewhere in Her Majesty's Government somebody will be preparing a Government speech for Her Majesty to read out in the other place in November. I suspect that, when Mr. Speaker makes that walk to the other place to hear the Government's speech read from the Throne, he may well understand if the figleaf of respectability given to the occasion by Her Majesty's Opposition has fallen by the wayside.
In 1979 the Tories spoke in their election manifesto of making Parliament effective in controlling the Executive. In 1983, the Tories spoke in their manifesto of keeping the rules and procedures of Parliament in good repair. In 1987, the Tories spoke only about decisive majorities in Parliament and strong government. They change procedures to suit themselves. They control local government and have come close to propounding a divine right. "Why bother with elections?" someone in the Government will be asking before long.
Our fellow citizens will become uneasy as they hear Members of Parliament speak in this place and outside of law-making without adequate discussion. It does not matter whether we agree or disagree with what the Lords have done; we are entitled to discuss the Bill's contents. Later, we shall be expected to ask our constituents to obey the law because Parliament has passed it.
The implied plank of that idea is that Parliament discussed the law before passing it. When I advise my constituents that they must obey the law or face the penalties and consequences built into it, I shall go out of my way to remind them that great tranches of the Bill were not debated in the House of Commons in Committee, on Report or when the House considered the more than 400


Lords amendments. This will make my constituents and those of other hon. Members very uneasy about obeying every dot and comma of the legislation, and rightly so.
If this does not make Conservative members of the legal profession uneasy, I fail to see what does. The Opposition do not argue about losing the votes. We understand the arithmetic in this place. The Government will get their Bill in any event. There never was anything that an Opposition faced with a Government majority could do to cause the Bill to be withdrawn or defeated on Second Reading. The best for which we could hope was to amend it, and the second best was to get it discussed. All the evidence is that the more the Bill is discussed inside and outside the House, the more the British people oppose the poll tax. Herein lies the reason for the hasty guillotine today.
The House could easily have sat for the first few days in August or last few days in July. The Government are now prone to bringing us back in the middle of a week. The House could easily have gone into recess in the middle of the week after next by having an extra day or two on this legislation. The Government would still have got the Bill. They would still have got Royal Assent. Why do the Government not want the Bill discussed in the House of Commons? Clearly it is because public opinion has moved so vastly and strongly against it.
I want to give only a few statistics, although the Minister gave us many. When the Lords amendments are put into or thrown out of the Bill, as the case may be, there will be 78 separate aspects requiring regulations. If I remember correctly, only one provides for an affirmative resolution, whereby the Government have to get the approval of the House.

Mr. Maxton: One more than in Scotland.

Mr. Rooker: One more than in Scotland, as my hon. Friend says. Those regulations cover 621 separate matters. Also, there are 23 other matters for orders and 92 instances of determination of other issues by Ministers alone, making 736 powers in hand for the Government in the Bill. That is unprecedented and it should worry everyone, because the number of opportunities for the House to debate the orders and regulations will be minuscule.
Even the children begin to think that something wrong is happening in the House of Commons. Believe it or not, some of our comics have referred to the poll tax. I freely admit that I am not a parent and am not as up-to-date on comics as I was. I discussed the matter the other day with my young friend William Pickering, aged 12¼, because of what he had read in his comic "Oink" about the poll tax. [Interruption.] Yes, there is a comic called "Oink". William asked me a few questions. He said, "There is a page in the July issue, Jeff, on 'Ten Things You Should Know about the New Poll Tax'." Time under the guillotine does not permit me to read out all 10, but I promised William that I would raise a few with the Minister:
"1. Everyone who owns a parrot has to pay Poll Tax.
2. If it talks, you pay double the basic rate.
3. If it says rude words, you pay treble the basic rate.
4. If it says rude words about the Labour party you get a full rebate and 1 cwt. of millet.
5. People who are members of the Conservative Party don't pay poll tax, no matter how many parrots they have."

I shall not take up the time of the House with the other five points, but at the end of the 10 things that young children should know about the poll tax it says:
A government spokesman explained that the new tax is necessary, as the old domestic rating system which it will replace is both illogical and unfair. When we suggested that the tax seemed to favour the well-off, he replied that nothing could be further from the truth and told us not to give the game away.
That is the reason for the guillotine motion.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Perhaps we should ask the Leader of the House to conduct an important investigation. Not so long ago we drastically increased the Opposition's Short money, yet all that the Opposition can do is to buy comics to explain their opposition to the poll tax. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and his research assistant could do a better job than read comics. Perhaps it is an indication of the Opposition's disastrous and short-tempered approach that they must now oppose the Bill by using comics and comic sketches alone. Nowadays the Opposition are comics, and comic lines are what we get more and more from the hon. Member for Perry Barr and the Leader of the Opposition.
I am pleased that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government has introduced the timetable motion. I am grateful for one simple reason: the sooner the Bill reaches the statute book, the better. The Bill will make local government throughout the country far more accountable. It is no wonder that the Labour party is so opposed to the Bill, because I believe and hope that it will make local government more accountable.
There has been a lot of talk about the number of Lords amendments, but it must be acknowledged that 243 of them are technical. We were faced with elections in Derbyshire this year and we were quite happy to explain to people what the community charge would do. What happened when we explained that to the people of Derbyshire? Were we roundly defeated at the polls? No, we won the city of Derby for the first time in seven years and we won control of Amber Valley district council for the first time ever. That was the result of telling people what the poll tax or the community charge will do for them. It will bring more accountability into local government.
The problem that is faced by young people in Derbyshire stems from the present ludicrous rating system. On Second Reading I asked the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) whether he thought that the present system reflected ability to pay. He rightly conceded that he did not think that it did. It takes no account of earnings or of the value of property. I believe that the Bill will bring about accountability in local government and that many more people will turn out to vote at local government elections. At the moment the incentive is not there. One of the strongest points of the Bill is that it will make people realise what local government is doing and what the costs of local government are.
I shall give one example from my constituency. Before I was elected as the Member for Derbyshire, West I had the privilege to serve for six years on Staffordshire council. In 1981, both Staffordshire and Derbyshire county councils were Conservative-controlled. The rate in Staffordshire was 112p and in Derbyshire it was 111·5p. They are counties of similar size and with similar problems. Both authorities became Labour-controlled in


1981, with fairly sound majorities. In Staffordshire the rate for 1988–89 is 215p in the pound. [Interruption.] I understand why the Opposition do not like what I am saying, but they will have to listen. They want the debate; they must listen.
In Staffordshire this year the rate levy is 215p in the pound and in Derbyshire it is 297p in the pound. That difference is not easy to explain to the electorate. With the community charge it will be far easier to explain.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: May I remind the House that in Staffordshire Labour was returned with a big majority in 1985?

Mr. McLoughlin: I readily concede that the authorities are Labour-controlled. However, this year we won control of the city of Derby for the first time in seven years and we won control of Amber Valley for the first time ever. That is relevant, because the county rate is 90 per cent. of the rates that people pay. The Opposition cannot get away from the fact that what happened in Derbyshire had a considerable effect on the electorate and on the Conservative cause.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Derbyshire has one of the best education services in terms of staff-student ratios? Does he also agree that Derbyshire's provision of meals for the elderly is admired considerably by other areas? Unfortunately, under the present Government, those services can be provided only by rate increases.

Mr. McLoughlin: I find it amazing that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is praising the county council for its education services, yet at the same time he is urging the Government to overturn the recommendations of the county council on education. I shall not be lectured to on education provision by the hon. Gentleman, who had to come to the Conservative Government to ensure that the parents in his constituency got what they wanted.
In Derbyshire we fought the election on the community charge. We were successful, and the sooner the Bill reaches the statute book the better.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The significance of today is that it is probably the last opportunity that the House will have to debate the most fundamental change of principle in the taxation system for 600 years. The Government have seen fit for the second time in the House to introduce in this Bill a guillotine which will limit debate. That is the significance of today.
There are matters that we have had no chance to debate at all and which were introduced in the other place, such as the attachment of benefit proposals, which was originally promised here but introduced for the first time in the other place. That proposal will have an enormous effect on poor people in Britain. Of course, the Government do not like to give much time to debates about the poor in Britain, although they are a large and growing proportion of the population. Some people in constituencies such as mine, who will be paying more than the average poll tax, will have their benefits attached, and will not have a total rebate. Their circumstances will not be properly debated. The people of urban and poor areas such as Southwark deserve to have the implications of the

poll tax debated in the House, but they will have to content themselves with the knowledge that the House of Commons spent a grand total of one and a half hours on such a significant amendment.
The Minister was rather disingenuous earlier about the ability of the Opposition to prepare for today. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made a perfectly valid point. The Government decided to table a guillotine motion only two days before this debate and there was insufficient time for hon. Members to respond in the appropriate and proper way. As it happens, and as I told the Minister, my colleagues and I put down 15 amendments. For the record, the majority of them were not simply motions that the House should disagree with the Lords amendments. Nine of them were substantive amendments.
The most significant feature of today's debate is that the Government have been forced to accept many of the arguments made to them in earlier debate. The more that the Bill has been debated, the more that anomalies have been exposed. In Committee, my colleagues argued that exemptions should be extended to religious communities. Originally the Government said no, but then they said yes. We argued also that voluntary care workers should enjoy exemption. At first the Government said no, and then they said yes. We argued that it was ludicrous that a remanded, unconvicted prisoner would pay poll tax, but that a convicted person would be exempt. The Government eventually conceded that point and gave in.
We argued that it was ludicrous that people who had become mentally handicapped as a result of an accident should be exempt when those who were congenitally mentally handicapped would not be. Again, the Government eventually accepted that argument too. Finally, we pointed out that it was a silly system that said that it did not matter whether one lived in a house, in a cardboard box, under an arch, or in a car, because one would still be liable to poll tax—even though the reality was that in the latter cases people would not have the money to pay, and that local authority officers would hardly have an incentive to collect it. We said that showed how ridiculous was a system whereby those with the least, and not even a home, would be chased to pay for services for those who are saving thousands by this change in local taxation. On that point too the Government eventually gave in.
All those points were made by my hon. Friends and other Opposition Members, and they were accepted by the Government. Therefore, the Government should not be afraid of argument, but should acknowledge that arguments and points put by the Opposition have improved the Bill. They have made a bad principle slightly less bad in its implementation.
The Government cannot be assured that they have the support of the majority of Britain for this Bill's proposals. More than 600 years ago, the only other Government attempt to introduce a poll tax in England culminated with the peasants' revolt, which was commemorated last month on Blackheath. There was guillotining then too. On that occasion, the guillotine fell on the Chancellor's neck. The Government then accepted that the poll tax was a bit of a foolish proposal. Today, there was in Westminster Hall an event celebrating another revolution, this time 300 years ago. That was the so-called glorious revolution, establishing constitutional freedoms. I had thought that one of the constitutional freedoms established was that


there would be no taxation without representation. The reality is that, as a result of the Bill, in future there will be no representation without taxation. That is something that the House has resisted, not for decades but for centuries.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Where does the hon. Gentleman get his notion of no representation without taxation? It will be possible to vote while at the same time not paying taxes. Will he explain the basis of his argument?

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand the import of the Bill by now, that is a sorry state of affairs. I tell him, as I tell my constituents, that in future if one registers to vote in a borough such as mine, one will also be registering to be taxed. One will not be possible without the other, because the rebate will not make up the difference—however large is the exemption.
In this contrived House of Commons, the Conservatives have a majority. Just over 40 per cent. of those who voted in the last general election supported the Government—about one third of Britain's electorate voted Conservative. The Government ought to remember that the majority of British people voted against the poll tax and have never accepted the principle of it. It may be that today we shall run out of time to debate the Bill, but the people of Britain know that the result of this Bill will be that it will soon be the Conservative party which will run out of time. It will be Conservative party Members who will always have hanging around their necks the label of being the poll tax party. It is the Conservatives who have pushed this Bill through, and although their new authoritarian, totalitarian revolution may have succeeded for the moment, ultimately it will be roundly defeated.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I shall not take any lectures from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), whose canvassers in the recent Kensington by-election were telling voters that everybody will be paying exactly the same for local government. Such an accusation is absurd.

Mr. Simon Hughes: indicated dissent.

Mr. Leigh: It was in one of his party's leaflets, and the hon. Gentleman produced it last week. Such an accusation is absurd, because the community charge will account for only one quarter of local government costs, and those with means may pay as much as 16 times more than those without means.
The clarity of the SLDP's arguments in that by-election was such that many people who were found by our canvassers to be SDP supporters were putting up SLDP posters, and vice versa. One thing that I will say for the Social and Liberal Democratic party is that at least it has the courage to have a policy, however disastrous that policy of local income tax would be for my constituency, where it would amount to about £500.
As to the brass neck of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), he announced—almost in the style of Mr. Bevan's remark about going naked into the conference chamber—that he would not come to this Chamber without a policy. We still await the Labour party's policy. What we have heard today from the

hon. Member for Perry Barr is so much cant and hypocrisy. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister drew an analogy with painting. The hon. Member for Perry Barr may remember the little drawings that one used to do as a child, in which, by drawing lines between the dots, a picture would emerge. Whichever Bill one brings to mind—whether it is that concerning trade union legislation or any of the other popular policies that nine years of Conservative Government have produced—one realises that the Opposition tried to talk them all out. For the most controversial Bills we have had to introduce guillotine motions, and the same arguments have been adduced again and again. The Opposition have used almost the same words as before—it is a well-run groove.

Mr. David Winnick: rose——

Mr. Leigh: No, I shall not give way, because I am making a very short speech.
Unlike the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, I sat through all five days of the Report stage, and, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I sat through 147 hours of Committee. There is one difference with this Bill.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman is a fool.

Mr. Leigh: I am not a fool. I did my duty in supporting the Government in introducing a Bill that was in our manifesto and for which we had popular support. As a Conservative Back Bencher, I was determined to take an interest in the Bill and to speak on it.
There is one difference between this Bill and earlier Bills in introducing a guillotine because of time-wasting tactics. In this case, having given all the time that was needed for clause 1, when the principle was debated hour after hour, and when there was much filibustering by the Opposition, we imposed an early guillotine. Because we did so, there was time to debate every clause carefully. It is nonsense for the hon. Member for Perry Barr to claim that the Bill has not been properly discussed, because it has.
As to the claim made in the Chamber last week by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that there would be an average of only a few seconds to discuss each of the 400 amendments, how can he say such a thing when—and I do not wish to trespass on your authority, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by suggesting that he was trying to mislead the House—virtually all those amendments were either agreed or were technical? When the hon. Gentleman made that claim he must have known that there was only one substantial point of difference between another place and this House, and that related to disabled people. That is a serious issue and one that we shall debate later today. He must have known that.
The Bill has been debated properly and carefully and has been put to the British people. It will become law, and I support it.

Mr. Brian Wilson: The manner of the disposal of the legislation is in keeping with its spirit. It is unjust, anti-democratic and smacks of totalitarianism. The legislation that the House is cursorily asked to consider is in chaos and the product will be unworkable. The proof of that is that it is becoming the same sort of political time bomb under the Tories in England and Wales as it has been for some time in Scotland. Tory


candidates now find it necessary to lie through their teeth to the electorate about the level of poll tax they will have to pay in order to stave off the evil hour when people realise the truth. Perhaps in by-elections they can get away with lying to people about the figures. However, the chickens will come home to roost. The facts cannot be evaded for ever. Eventually people will realise exactly what they will be asked to pay under the poll tax. We know from the Scottish experience that the more people know about the reality, the more deeply hostile and angry they become about what is being visited upon them.
I congratulate the Minister, who, I see from The Daily Telegraph, is to have the poisoned chalice removed from him and is to rise to higher offices of state as a reward for his efforts on this legislation. He said in his introduction that local authorities must know where they stand. I welcome his solicitous concern about the information to be provided to local authorities so that they may go about their business. The reality is that the Bill, which is primarily concerned with introducing the poll tax into England and Wales, has gratuitously tacked on to it over 100 amendments relating directly to Scotland. Will the Minister explain the consistency of his line? There can be no delay about introducing the poll tax in England and Wales because local authorities must know where they stand, yet, even at this late hour, four months after the registration process was started in Scotland and less than eight months from the poll tax taking effect, over 100 amendments will be imposed upon Scottish local authorities and they will have to be introduced into their arrangements for the poll tax.
The amendments affecting Scotland which the Minister, who has no responsibility for Scotland, is putting before the House range from the sublime to the ridiculous. They deal with provision for the disabled. In the House of Lords, amendments were successfully introduced in support of the disabled. The Tories are once again coming to the House to kick the crutches from the disabled. One of the most heinous aspects of the legislation is the contempt and hostility with which it treats the disabled. One of the most offensive aspects of the legislation is that it makes no special provision for the physically handicapped, no matter how severe the handicap. The Minister will reinforce that provision from the Dispatch Box.
Another heinous aspect of the legislation is the introduction, for the first time in our society, of a category of citizen hitherto uninvented called the severely mentally handicapped. People will have to queue up, in the original words of the the legislation, for "certification" as "severely mentally handicapped" in order to escape the poll tax. Those are the provisions of the legislation, which is now to be hustled through the House for the administrative convenience of the Government and to avoid the political embarrassment which mounts daily.
Why come back to the House to seek to overturn the amendments? Why not accept the semi-humane amendments of the House of Lords—heaven knows, little enough has been improved in the House of Lords—which would mean that at least the rebates could be topped up so that people who live in areas where there is a particularly high poll tax and who, being severely physically disabled, are particularly penalised, will be helped? The Minister should have the guts and the grace to accept those amendments. If not, he will do his party's bidding and push the legislation through and the ultimate victims will be those

in our society who are least able to defend themselves. Whatever high office the Minister and the Secretary of Slate move on to, they should know that they have done that on the backs of the disabled, the poor and the weakest in society. They will be the greatest losers under the poll tax.
I shall now move on to the ridiculous. The peers in the House of Lords—that great bastion of vested interest—are brought in in their charabancs or on the night train from Inverness to vote for any piece of rubbish presented to them. While the disabled, the poorest in society and those who live in the rural communities of Scotland are hard hit by the poll tax, it is unbelievable that they found time to introduce a clause to exempt from non-domestic rates the salmon proprietors of Scotland. They kick the disabled when they are down but give another £1·5 million handout to the salmon proprietors of Scotland. It is beyond belief. How many of the peers and the great highland grandees brought south to vote for the poll tax a few weeks ago will be direct beneficiaries of the latest handout? We know from our calculations that every Scottish peer who voted against introducing an ability-to-pay principle will gain a minimum of £2,000 from the poll tax. That is not enough for them because we are dealing with the greediest vested interest lobby in society—the sporting proprietors of Scotland. Therefore, they have added a clause to the poll tax legislation for England and Wales which introduces exemption from rates for salmon proprietors in Scotland. It would be beyond belief if we were dealing with any other Government or type of Government. The Minister should say that he will take back the £1·5 million from the salmon proprietors in Scotland and give it to the disabled in Scotland.
In this building today we went through the mumbo-jumbo of freedom and democracy. Yet, in the same building, we are pushing through 500 amendments, most of them undiscussed, in order to impose the poll tax legislation on the country. There will not be a moment to discuss the implications of the uniform business rate upon Scotland. There will not be a moment to reconsider the 100 clauses in the English legislation that apply to Scotland. What is being pushed through, on the back of English and Welsh legislation and without the presence of a Minister from the Scottish Office on the Treasury Bench, is a subsidiary poll tax Bill for Scotland—[Interruption.] It has been pointed out to me by my colleagues that there is not a solitary Tory Member representing Scotland sitting on the Government Benches. They have only 10, but one of them could have come back from lunch in time to be sitting in the Chamber while 100 amendments directly relating to Scotland are bludgeoned through the House.
The poll tax legislation is not the flagship of the Tories; it is the coffinship. The message that leaves the Chamber today is that the Government have added another crime to those of unfairness, injustice, unworkability and attacks on local authorities. The crime of the day is bludgeoning through a measure that is profoundly anti-democratic with the most anti-democratic device at their disposal.

Mr. David Wilshire: I listened in amazement to the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and his honourable parrot, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). It is as if they have been delving into their dictionaries looking for words of abuse for half the week


and reading comics for the other half. The performance that we have heard is typical of the performance of the Labour party throughout progress on the Bill in this place. It is hot air and exaggeration of the worst sort, and it is abuse. We have not heard a constructive word from Opposition Members and, even more important, they have not put forward a policy of their own.
The reality is not what we have heard from the Labour party. The reality of the guillotine motion is the exact opposite. It is not an affront to democracy. The guillotine motion is sensible and, from the way in which the Opposition have behaved, it is probably necessary. The question of democracy has been raised by Opposition Members. One can always tell when people are struggling for an argument because they trot out comparisons with Hitler. I can only guess that the reason why the Opposition chose to do that is that they are embarrassed.
Opposition Members are trying to divert attention from the fact that the House of Lords basically endorsed the principles of the Bill. They also want to disguise the fact that this House has endorsed it three times. We must get the Bill on to the statute book as quickly as possible because it gives expression to the democratically expressed wish of the British people and the sooner it is there, the better.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) was right, as he usually is, when he described the speeches by Opposition Members as entirely routine expressions of denunciation of the kind that we always hear when such a motion is before us. So lacking in conviction was the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that his hon. Friends, notably the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), could not keep to the issues that arise in this debate and could not keep to the question of the time that would be allowed, but strayed, not surprisingly, into a series of hysterically wild accusations about the merits of our proposals, which will be answered comprehensively this evening.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that Opposition Members made exactly the same comments about the Education Reform Bill, but did not bother to turn up for the debate?

Mr. Howard: That does not surprise me in the slightest.
The quality of the arguments that we have heard is perhaps epitomised by the contribution of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who is not even in his place at the moment. He complained about the lack of opportunity to discuss the amendments relating to rebates. I see that he has now returned to his place, just in time to hear what I have to say about his contribution. It is true that some amendments relating to rebates have been tabled in another place and that the hon. Gentleman's party tabled one amendment to those amendments. It was not selected, so, quite apart from the guillotine motion, the hon. Gentleman's point about the lack of time available to him to discuss the rebates was as bogus as the points that we usually hear from his party.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr and his colleagues have not dealt with the central argument that I advanced

when I opened the debate an hour ago. They have not dealt with the fact that they have tabled just three amendments of which only two have been selected. The time element to which the hon. Gentleman referred is entirely bogus. If he had been following the progress of the legislation in another place, he would have known about some of the amendments for weeks and months. He has had ample opportunity to table all the amendments that he wanted, if he had thought that substantive points needed to be discussed.

Mr. Rooker: Three Tory Members and one Labour Member have spoken in the debate. Let us have a bit of fairness. The Minister knows that we did not know that we would have only one day for the Lords amendments. We were led to believe that there would be a reasonable discussion and that we would be allowed a reasonable chance, as on Report, when we had five days, having originally been offered only four. We were led to believe that we would have more time. One day is unacceptable and we had no notice of it.

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to the Order [22 February.]

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 210.

Division No. 426]
[5.04 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, Mr


Amos, Alan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Colvin, Michael


Ashby, David
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Cran, James


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Curry, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Day, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Devlin, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Dicks, Terry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Durant, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dykes, Hugh


Bowis, John
Emery, Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evennett, David


Brazier, Julian
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bright, Graham
Fallon, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Farr, Sir John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Favell, Tony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Buck, Sir Antony
Fishburn, John Dudley


Burt, Alistair
Fookes, Miss Janet


Butcher, John
Forman, Nigel


Butler, Chris
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butterfill, John
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Franks, Cecil


Carrington, Matthew
Freeman, Roger


Cash, William
French, Douglas


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Fry, Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gale, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Gardiner, George


Chope, Christopher
Gill, Christopher






Glyn, Dr Alan
Maclean, David


Goodlad, Alastair
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gorst, John
Madel, David


Gow, Ian
Major, Rt Hon John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Malins, Humfrey


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maples, John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marland, Paul


Gregory, Conal
Marlow, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grist, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Ground, Patrick
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hanley, Jeremy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hannam,John
Mellor, David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Miller, Sir Hal


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mills, Iain


Harris, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger


Hawkins, Christopher
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayes, Jerry
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayward, Robert
Moore, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Heddle, John
Morrison, Sir Charles


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Mudd, David


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neale, Gerrard


Hill, James
Neubert, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholls, Patrick


Holt, Richard
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howard, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Page, Richard


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Paice, James


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hunter, Andrew
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pawsey, James


Irvine, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irving, Charles
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert
Price, Sir David


Janman, Tim
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jessel, Toby
Redwood, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kilfedder, James
Rossi, Sir Hugh


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rost, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rowe, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knowles, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Latham, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Speed, Keith


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stern, Michael





Stevens, Lewis
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Walden, George


Stokes, Sir John
Waller, Gary


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Walters, Sir Dennis


Sumberg, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Summerson, Hugo
Warren, Kenneth


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Watts, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wheeler, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Whitney, Ray


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilkinson, John


Thorne, Neil
Wilshire, David


Thornton, Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Woodcock, Mike


Tredinnick, David
Yeo, Tim


Trippier, David



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
 Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.




NOES


Allen, Graham
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Alton, David
Dixon, Don


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Douglas, Dick


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Duffy, A. E. P.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Eastham, Ken


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Battle, John
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Beckett, Margaret
Fatchett, Derek


Beggs, Roy
Faulds, Andrew


Beith, A. J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bell, Stuart
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fisher, Mark


Bermingham, Gerald
Flannery, Martin


Bidwell, Sydney
Flynn, Paul


Blair, Tony
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boateng, Paul
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Foulkes, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Galbraith, Sam


Buchan, Norman
Galloway, George


Buckley, George J.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Caborn, Richard
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Callaghan, Jim
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Canavan, Dennis
Gould, Bryan


Cartwright, John
Graham, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clay, Bob
Grocott, Bruce


Clelland, David
Hardy, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Coleman, Donald
Haynes, Frank


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Heffer, Eric S.


Corbett, Robin
Henderson, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cox, Tom
Home Robertson, John


Cryer, Bob
Hood, Jimmy


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)






Illsley, Eric
Patchett, Terry


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L.


Janner, Greville
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


John, Brynmor
Prescott, John


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Radice, Giles


Kirkwood, Archy
Redmond, Martin


Lambie, David
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lamond, James
Reid, Dr John


Leighton, Ron
Richardson, Jo


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lewis, Terry
Robertson, George


Litherland, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey


Livingstone, Ken
Rogers, Allan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooker, Jeff


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Loyden, Eddie
Rowlands, Ted


McAllion, John
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


McCartney, Ian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McKelvey, William
Short, Clare


McLeish, Henry
Skinner, Dennis


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McTaggart, Bob
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Madden, Max
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Soley, Clive


Mallon, Seamus
Spearing, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Gavin


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Straw, Jack


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maxton, John
Turner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Vaz, Keith


Meale, Alan
Wall, Pat


Michael, Alun
Walley, Joan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wareing, Robert N.


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wigley, Dafydd


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morley, Elliott
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Mullin, Chris
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Murphy, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Nellist, Dave
Wray, Jimmy


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Brien, William



O'Neill, Martin
Tellers for the Noes:


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Mr. Allen Adams and


Parry, Robert
 Mrs. Llin Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Order of the House [22nd February], as varied by the Order of the House [13th April], be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting.

(2) The amendments shall be taken in the order shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of the Order [22nd February], each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE


Proceedings


Lords Amendments
Time for conclusion


Nos. 22, 1, 2, 207 to 217 and 3 to 21
6.00 pm


Nos. 171, 23 to 26 and 218 to 233
7.30 pm


Nos. 234 to 265, 27 to 80, 266 to 270, 81 to 87 and 271 to 277
9.15 pm


Nos. 88 to 91, 278 to 291, 92 to 114, 292 and 293, 115 to 117,294, 118 to 170,172 to 185 and 295 to 334
10.15 pm


Nos. 335 to 408, 186 to 205, 409 to 414, 206 and 415
Midnight

(3) If this day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, is to be brought to a conclusion at this sitting shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
(i) put forthwith the question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown. That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted at any time by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, is to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Finance Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 13

RELIEF FOR STUDENTS

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 10, line 3, at end insert—
( ) If a person is undertaking a course of nursing education on each day of that period, the amount he is liable to pay under this section shall be determined by order, no such amount being less than one-fifth of the amount it would be apart from this section.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we shall consider the following Lords amendments:
No. 32.
No. 33, in clause 27, page 16, line 29, at end insert
and (e) education may include nursing education.
Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, at end insert—
`( ) The regulations shall include a statement of what courses constitute, in the Secretary of State's opinion, full-time courses of nursing education; but this is without prejudice to the power to provide, or not to provide, that a person undertaking such a course is to be treated as undertaking a full-time course of education for the purposes of this Part.'.

Mr. Howard: This group of amendments concerns the community charge liability of student nurses. This is a topic that was fully considered during the passage of the Bill through this House. Indeed, at Report stage on 19 April the House debated and voted on amendments about student nurses.
At that stage I argued, and the House accepted, that it would be inappropriate to treat salaried nurses—or, indeed, others undertaking training while at work—as students for the purposes of the community charge. During that debate, however, the question of student nurses and Project 2000 was raised. I said, in response:
If Project 2000 is implemented in due course and student nurses are treated as students on bursaries rather than salaries, we shall certainly reconsider their position under the community charge."—[Official Report, 19 April 1988; 'Vol. 131, c. 751.]
As the House will be aware, on 23 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced that the Government did indeed intend to accept many of the recommendations of Project 2000, including the proposal that student nurses should receive non-taxable bursaries rather than salaries.
The Government also made it clear during the debates on the Bill in another place that, once Project 2000 was implemented, assuming that the qualifying conditions concerning periods of supervised study and similar matters were met, student nurses would automatically become students for the purpose of the personal community charge, and thereby pay only 20 per cent. of the charge. So the question that arises is what the position should be


before Project 2000 is implemented, at the stage when student nurses are still receiving salaries. As I said during earlier stages of the Bill's consideration, the Government argued successfully that it would be inappropriate to treat as students salaried nurses or others undertaking training while at work.
Having defeated an amendment in Committee in another place, the amendments now before us were added to the Bill on Report, against the Government's wishes. The amendments are intended to require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make an order determining the level of community charge to be paid by student nurses. The Government accept that there should be such a power and we are not, therefore, asking the House to overturn the spirit behind the amendments. Unfortunately, the Lords amendments are defective in their drafting. It is by no means certain that they would have the precise effect that their proponents intend. It is essential that the defective amendments should be replaced by ones that work, and that is the purpose of the Government amendment.
The Government amendment would still require my right hon. Friend to make regulations setting out the level of community charge to be paid by student nurses. The only difference in the effect of the amendments is that the Lords amendments would allow the payment to be anywhere between 20 and 100 per cent. of the charge. The Government amendment envisages a choice between 100 per cent. payment and 20 per cent. The option on interim levels of payment will not be open, except to the extent that student nurses may be eligible for rebates. That reflects the fact that in practice the Government would choose only 20 per cent. or 100 per cent. In other words, student nurses should be treated as students in some or all circumstances.
More extensive and complicated amendments would have been required to keep open the possibility of an intermediate figure. As I have said, when Project 2000 is implemented, student nurses will automatically become students for the purpose of the community charge. That leaves the level of charge to be paid by student nurses before Project 2000 is implemented. That is an issue on which we have yet to take a decision. We shall be considering the matter carefully in the light of all the issues that arise, including the timetable for implementing Project 2000. We shall then announce our decision and lay the regulations that the amendment requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make. The Government amendment incorporates the spirit of the amendments that were passed in another place and improves on their drafting. It is for that reason that I invite the House to disagree with the Lords amendment and to accept the Government amendment.

Mr. William O'Brien: It is clear that their Lordships recognised that student nurses were students and, therefore, should qualify for relief from paying the poll tax in full. The Opposition welcome that view and would wish to uphold the Lords amendment.
Why does not the spirit that allows nurses in training to be accepted for relief not extend to nurses in Scotland for the first year of the poll tax in that country? I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that student nurses in Scotland in their first year will enjoy relief.
There are other students—they may be in an apprenticeship or in receipt of training—who have an income that is below the level determined by the Secretary of State for the Environment. In many instances, they have no income. The Labour party has always argued that taxation should be based on the principle of the ability to pay, and a flat-rate tax is unrelated to that ability. It is significant that the Government have no compassion. They are not willing to help those who are in receipt of low incomes. That is compounded by Ministers' arrogant attitude to students and others in higher education.
There are many in their 19th year who attend either a sixth form college or a tertiary college. They are participating in full-time education courses of 21 hours a week. According to the Government's proposals, they will have to pay poll tax, even though there is no family allowance available to them and they have no other income. No rebate will be made available to this group. The members of it are not even considered equal to those who are sleeping rough or others who are having to live in the cardboard city.
It is suggested by the Department of the Environment that there are 3,000 throughout the country who come within the group I have described. I suggest that if a proper count were undertaken, the total would be nearer 10,000. In the area of Wakefield, for example, there are no fewer than 56 such students. If the Wakefield figure is used for the rest of the country, there is a substantial number of 19-year-olds in full-time education who are not being taken into account. I ask the Minister seriously to regard these students.
Unless the Government are prepared to accept amendments, access to higher education and equal opportunities for young people will undoubtedly be removed from many. If these young people are made to pay £6 or £7 per week out of nothing, as it were, or from low incomes, access will be denied to them. The imperialistic attitude that the Secretary of State is taking to those on low incomes, especially to young people who are in higher or further education, ensures that the paying of poll tax will be controversial. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has outlined on earlier occasions how some of his constituents will regard poll tax legislation, there having been little time to discuss it in detail, or the Bill in its entirety. Many young people will fall by the wayside. They will not be able to pay any part of the poll tax.
The difficulty will be heightened dramatically when local authorities such as Westminster city council send in the bounty hunters. I have in mind a headline that appeared in the Westminster and Pimlico News. It appears that Westminster council suggests that bounty hunters will be employed to ensure that people pay their poll tax. The articles states:
Private companies could be paid 'bounties' to collect names and personal information for Westminster's poll tax register. And outside bailiffs are likely to be used to collect outstanding poll tax debts, Westminster's policy and resources committee was told on Monday … each person will have to pay £372 in poll tax. However, each name is worth £1,300 to Westminster when government grant is added.
It seems that Tory local authorities are organising bounty hunters. For every head, as it were, that they can recruit or shanghai on to the register in Westminster, a bounty will be paid by the authority. That practice has arisen because of the Government's methods of financing local government. If it is not the intention of the Secretary of


State or the Minister for Local Government that bounty hunters should be employed by local authorities—especially by Tory-controlled local authorities—they should dissociate themselves from that newspaper article. No hon. Member or anyone outside should accept the practice of employing bounty hunters.
5.30 pm
What will happen when bounty hunters track down people who are experiencing difficulty paying the poll tax because of their low incomes? We all know that the information on the rebate scheme is so abysmal that no one can explain how it will work. Many people will be hounded by bounty hunters. When they are tracked down, councils such as Westminster city council will haul offenders before magistrates who, if they wish, may issue distress warrants.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Are those circumstances any different than those that operate at present, whereby councils employ people to find those who have not paid their rates and prosecute them?

Mr. O'Brien: There is a substantial difference. At present, no bounty is paid. According to Westminster city council, if a poll tax payer does not pay but is caught, the council's income increases from £372 to £1,300, which is the bounty that will be chased.
When bailiffs are called in, what will they collect from a 19-year-old or a student who has been unable to pay the poll tax? What furniture or materials will they collect?. Perhaps a record player or a couple of pairs of jeans. That is all that they could expect to collect from a 19-year-old. Bounty hunters will be paid substantial amounts to track down those people, but what is the point of employing bounty hunters to track down people who cannot afford to pay?
I ask the Minister to lend a receptive ear to the request for amendments to be made to include students and the other people to whom I have referred. We welcome the Lords amendment but think that it should be extended to include many other young people and those who will experience difficulty in paying the poll tax. In an area where the poll tax will be £250, the cut-off point for paying it for 18 to 24-year-olds will be less than £51. That is a substantial reason why the Minister should address himself to this important issue.
Any amendment that is made should take into account the anomalies of the low-income groups and people in training. The rebate scheme should be extended to include those groups and people on training schemes. If Conservative Members believe that the problem will disappear when Project 2000 is introduced in September 1990 they are incorrect. Those unfortunate people will have to pay the poll tax within six months of its introduction or 12 months to 18 months in Scotland. To say that the problem will be resolved by the introduction of Project 2000 is incorrect. I ask the Minister to examine this problem and make amendments to ensure that no hardship is suffered by those in full-time education or in training in the first month of the introduction of the poll tax. It will be anomalous if students other than student nurses are not included in the rebate scheme.
We appreciate, accept and welcome the Lords amendment, but we ask that it be extended to include other students. Does the Minister accept that training schemes should be designated to allow young people throughout

England, Scotland and Wales who are continuing with full-time education and training to qualify for a poll tax rebate, as suggested in the Lords amendment? We ask the Minister to comment specifically on that point. We shall support the Lords amendment.

Mr. John Hannam: As I understood the opening remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, the Government accept the spirit of the Lords amendment that student nurses should be eligible for an 80 per cent. discount on the community charge. I am not clear at what stage of their training they will become eligible. If they fall into the category of receiving discounts throughout their training, we could create a serious anomaly for other professional student categories who pursue a one-year, pre-registration period of training of a similar nature to nurses before being allowed to practise.
Before the Lords amendment was passed the other groups of professional trainees reluctantly accepted the Government's statement that unless they were in full-time, grant-receipted education they would be eligible for full payment of the community charge. A number of those groups, including dental trainees, optometrists and pharmacy students, having completed their normal tertiary three-year, grant-maintained education, do an extra year of low-paid, pre-registration training. Like nurses, they are employed during that period by health authorities or, in Scotland, by health boards for their final qualifications. Their pay scales are roughly similar to those of nurses—about £5,000 or £6,000 a year.
I and the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) tabled an amendment on the basis of the original Lords amendment at the request of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, to which I am an adviser, which was backed by the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association. Its purpose was to bring the other professional trainees within the scope of the exemption given to nursing students.
The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (M r. Chope), wrote to me on Monday expressing understanding of the anomaly that could be created and intimated that the Government would consider what provision to make. I shall not take up the time of the House, because it is clearly understood that a problem could be created if, in the interim period until the implementation of Project 2000, nurses were to receive exemption from the community charge. I am confident that my hon. Friend, understanding the problem, will be able to find a solution to it so as not to perpetuate an unnecessary anomaly. I hope that he will be able to clarify the position as it affects the important groups of trainees in other medical professions.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I shall be brief in this truncated debate. I rise to support fully what the lion. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has said and to support the amendment that stands in his name and mine. Since we tabled the amendment, which is in effect an amendment to the Lords amendment, Lords amendment No.33 has appeared. I hope that as we are considering it with these others the Government will be able to do something about pre-registration students.
As the hon. Member for Exeter said, there are doctor, dentist, pharmacist and optician pre-registration students. Those are the basic categories. The dentists and doctors may not be as badly off as the opticians and pharmacists,


who are paid less on the whole—there are exceptions—and sometimes considerably less, than the top grade of student nurses.
I welcome the Government's acceptance of the Lords amendment that concerns nurses. It would have been disgraceful to do otherwise, but there are these other groups of health care professionals. I am not going as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). I agree with what he said about low-paid people, but I am not taking the matter that far; nor is the hon. Member for Exeter. We are concerned only with a narrow band of people who will be working with student nurses, in the same teams, and who receive as much as £1,000 less than they do, yet will have to pay the full burden of the poll tax. A sledgehammer tax such as the poll tax will always result in such problems.
When the Government make the regulations envisaged under amendment No. 33, I plead with them to extend the same provisions to pharmacists and other postgraduate pre-professional people in training, because such people will be in a difficult position. I wish that, instead of mentioning nursing education, the amendment had used the phrase "health care education", in which case there would have been no difficulty about extending the regulations. I ask the Minister to take care of the anomaly that will inevitably result and that will apply particularly to pharmacy students, but also to many others.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) will forgive me if I do not follow his point about pharmacists. I want to take up the issue of student nurses.
I supported the Government wholeheartedly in Committee and on Report on this matter. It seemed to me that we were in danger of creating another anomaly that would mean that people in salaried jobs would receive an exemption that was not available to others who were in salaried jobs but might be earning less than student nurses. We were being misled to a certain extent by emotion and the word "student". Student nurses are paid employees earning a salary. That will change in September 1990 with the introduction of Project 2000, under which nurses will become students in full-time education, with part of their training done on the wards. They will receive a bursary. When that happens, it will make sense to treat them as other students.
5.45 pm
However, we are not clear about students who begin their training before September 1990 and who, on the old training scheme, will be salaried employees. My guess is that they will continue to be on the old training scheme until the end of their three-year training programme. I cannot believe that it is intended to switch them into Project 2000 halfway through their training. If that is so, and if they remain salaried employees, it would be unfair to treat them other than as salaried employees who may be on a fairly low wage. They should be treated in the same way and receive the same rebates. If they transfer to Project 2000, Ministers will want to ensure that they are treated like other students. May we have some clarification about this?

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I was contacted this week by two student nurses in my constituency in their second year. One of them, Mandy Lumley, said:
It is unfair that we are singled out to pay this tax whilst students remain exempt.
Karen said:
I have only just realised what this means to me and I am horrified that it is another deduction from my pay packet.
Jane Brown, the Royal College of Nursing representative, echoed that by saying that the student nurses that she represented were just beginning to realise how serious the problem was. That is no wonder, given the impact of the figures that have frequently been debated in the House at all stages of this Bill. I do not intend to hold up proceedings by going through them again—Ministers have already heard them.
When the Minister started his speech, I wondered whether he had had a change of heart and would not accept the spirit of the amendments. He launched into a strong attack on the principle of the amendments, but he has said that he will accept their spirit. He is to be congratulated on that, as is Baroness Robson of Kiddington, who followed through, on behalf of the Social and Liberal Democrats, the campaign that we have waged at all stages to get student nurses this form of exemption. In that, she was successful in another place.
Lords amendment No. 22 is different from the amendments that we proposed in the House. Here, we sought merely to include nurses in the definition of a student so that they would obtain 80 per cent. student relief as of right. Our colleagues listened to the Government's arguments and tabled a conciliatory amendment in the Lords. It leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide what level of poll tax student nurses should pay, as long as it is at least 20 per cent. That shows that we have conceded ground. By way of return, I hope that the Minister will give a firmer sign of whether he intends to make use of these provisions before Project 2000 is brought in.
Since this issue was debated in the Commons, the Secretary of State for Social Services has announced implementation of Project 2000, which, by implication, means entitlement to 80 per cent. relief from poll tax for student nurses. In that way, the Government agree with the principle. The Minister has said that he agrees with the spirit; the problem remains the gap between the introduction of the poll tax and the full implementation of Project 2000. It is even conceivable, because of the phased implementation of Project 2000, that some student nurses could be paying 100 per cent. of the poll tax while their workmates, who are not on precisely the same form of course, will pay only 20 per cent. because they started their training at a different time, as Project 2000 was being phased in.
I hope that, having taken the decision to allow student nurses the 80 per cent. relief, the Government will implement it in as fair a way as possible. This amendment has had all-party support, although the Government expressed their unhappiness with its wording before Third Reading in the Lords. So what the Minister said about it is not new. The Government tried to persuade Lady Robson to accept further amendments, which she resisted.
The Government say that including student nurses in clause 13 is unnecessary, as clause 30 gives them the power to specify what is meant by "student". That is true, but


before the amendment was agreed to the Government had no intention of including student nurses. So we thought they needed to be persuaded in that direction.
Furthermore, they have said that they have no intention of using the new power to vary the rebate by a percentage intermediate between 0 and 80 as that would lead to unacceptable complications. That may be a fair point, as long as the Government are prepared to make some concession to students who are meant to be covered in this way.
We accept that the wording of the amendments could be improved, and we have no objection in principle to seeing it changed as long as the Government are prepared to commit themselves to granting a poll tax rebate to a significant number of student nurses. So far, they have not been prepared to make any concession on that. Not so long ago, the Government said that they would allow a registration scheme for dogs but they had no intention whatever of putting it into practice. We are worried that that is the attitude of the Government in this case. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
Our response depends entirely upon the Government. If they show a willingness to offer an 80 per cent. exemption to student nurses from 1990 we can accept their amendment to Lords amendment No. 33. Although the Government say that they agree with us, we have not had that commitment. The student nurses in my constituency that I mentioned will be comparatively well off. In London, nurses might lose up to 17 per cent. of their incomes because of the poll tax.
We are talking about a fairly small number of people prior to the implementation of Project 2000. It would not be enormously costly or a permanent fixture. I hope that the Government will accept my point and that the Minister's reply will be welcomed by student nurses when they read the reports of this debate.

Mr. Allen McKay: I too should like to speak about student nurses. I agree wholeheartedly with the amendment because I can see problems in the future. The time may come when we cannot do anything to amend the measure and it will be a matter only for the Secretary of State. For that reason, it would be wise to accept the amendment. I agree with the Lords amendment with which the Government disagree.
I am a little worried about Project 2000. Who, and how many, will it cover? At present we have many student nurses of varying technical and academic ability. I understand that some of the best students who are academically qualified will go forward to Project 2000. If my figures are right, the Barnsley authority is thinking about 10 a year. That means that we are not talking about the whole of the student nursing fraternity in that area.
The Secretary of State must determine who is a student nurse. Do we take the word "student" as the criterion? It has been said that they are salaried but, of course, the amount of the salary takes account of the fact that they are students. If that were not the case, they would not be getting such low salaries. Will the legislation cover all student nurses when Project 2000 is introduced, or will it cover only the narrow band of student nurses who will go forward to Project 2000? If it is only that narrow band, then we are creating another anomaly; to avoid that, it would probably be better to support the Lords amendment and the amendments to it.
One student should he treated in the same way as another. The pay of student nurses goes up when they have finished their student days, and to make it easy and simple we should give a rebate to all students whatever their category or occupation.

Mr. Howard: I shall not be able to reply to all the points that have been raised during this short debate, because final details on the precise nature of Project 2000 have not yet been decided. It is precisely for that reason that both the Lords amendment and the Government amendment which we have put down in substitution of the Lords amendment take the form of a regulation-making power that will enable the Secretary of State to make an order fixing the community charge that will be payable by student nurses. It was recognised that that is a sensible way to deal with the matter so that when all the details of Project 2000 have been settled an order can be made in the light of the decisions.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asked me to deal with the situation that would arise in Scotland. We welcome to our deliberations after his long perambulation the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). [Interruption.] I hope that he ran all the way. We are delighted to see him with us. He reiterated the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Normanton. Of course there is a similar but separate order-making power for student nurses in Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will he required to make an order determining the level of community charge to be paid by student nurses there. He will make that order in good time for the start of the new system north of the border on 1 April 1989. At this time I cannot say what order my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will make, because he will have to take into account the kind of factor about which I have spoken and which will be the basis of the Government's decisions on this matter.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) was quite wrong to suggest that the Government would not have moved as a consequence of the introduction of Project 2000 had it not been for the amendment moved by Baroness Robson of Kiddington and passed in the other place. The hon. Gentleman may remember that when the question of Project 2000 was raised when the Bill was in the House, I said in direct response to an intervention that I think he made that we would have to consider the effect of Project 2000 if the recommendations that it envisaged were accepted. I said that that might have a significant effect on the liability of student nurses for the community charge.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister is right, but as I understood it he was talking about what would happen to student nurses under the Project 2000 proposals. The main question today is what happens to those who are not on Project 2000 while the project is being phased in? We are not clear about that.

Mr. Howard: That is true; it is not clear because no decisions have yet been taken. It was because of that state of play, recognised in the amendment put forward by Baroness Robson of Kiddington and passed in the other place, that the amendment takes the form of a regulation-making power. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will


be able to take into account the evolution of the Project 2000 proposals before making an order under that regulation-making power.

Mr. Taylor: The Minister's answer sounds good. He says that he accepts that there will possibly be differences between students during the implementation of Project 2000 and that it is his intention to use these changes potentially to ensure that students will not be treated in different ways at the same time.

Mr. Howard: I have said a number of times that that is the kind of consideration that we shall take into account. We have not decided how to exercise the order-making power. We shall consider the problem of anomalies that may arise but have not yet taken any decisions on the matter.
The hon. Member for Truro should be somewhat cautious in his observations about student nurses. Student nurses become qualified. I hope that he tells his constituents in Truro that qualified nurses paying local income tax under the proposals that his party favours would end up paying £260 a year towards the cost of local authority services compared with a community charge of £190. When the hon. Gentleman pretends to be the champion of student nurses, I hope that he makes it plain to student nurses in his constituency just how much more they would have to pay under the proposals advanced by his party when they become fully qualified and have to pay his local income tax.
We accept the spirit of the Lords amendment. I believe that the one distinction between the effect of that amendment and the effect of the amendment that we are seeking to substitute for it is generally accepted and has not led to particular criticism. For that reason I commend the amendment that the Government have advanced to the House.
The hon. Member for Normanton also asked about 19 year-olds at sixth-form colleges. They will, of course, be entitled to the maximum 80 per cent. rebate depending on their income, or if they have no private income. In an area where the provision of the standard level of services results in a community charge of £202, such students would be expected to make a 20 per cent. contribution. That means that they would be paying something like 80p per week and I do not believe that that is an unreasonable contribution for them to make.

It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 211.

Division No. 427]
[6 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Amos, Alan
Bendall, Vivian


Arbuthnot, James
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Ashby, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Atkins, Robert
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, David
Body, Sir Richard


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boswell, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Bottomley, Peter





Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Gregory, Conal


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ground, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hannam, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Alan


Butcher, John
Hawkins, Christopher


Butler, Chris
Hayes, Jerry


Butterfill, John
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carrington, Matthew
Heddle, John


Cash, William
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chope, Christopher
Hill, James


Churchill, Mr
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howard, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irving, Charles


Curry, David
Jack, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jackson, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Janman, Tim


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
Kilfedder, James


Durant, Tony
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Emery, Sir Peter
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knapman, Roger


Evennett, David
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fallon, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Favell, Tony
Lang, Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Latham, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawrence, Ivan


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lord, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Freeman, Roger
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
McCrindle, Robert


Fry, Peter
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, George
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maclean, David


Gill, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Madel, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Major, Rt Hon John


Gorst, John
Malins, Humfrey


Gow, Ian
Mans, Keith


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maples, John






Marland, Paul
Sims, Roger


Marlow, Tony
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maude, Hon Francis
Speed, Keith


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mellor, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miller, Sir Hal
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mills, Iain
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stevens, Lewis


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stokes, Sir John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Sumberg, David


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Summerson, Hugo


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mudd, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neale, Gerrard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thorne, Neil


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Page, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Paice, James
Tredinnick, David


Patnick, Irvine
Trippier, David


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Trotter, Neville


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pawsey, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Portillo, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Powell, William (Corby)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Price, Sir David
Walden, George


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


Redwood, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rhodes James, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


Riddick, Graham
Watts, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wheeler, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Roe, Mrs Marion
Widdecombe, Ann


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wiggin, Jerry


Rost, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Rowe, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ryder, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Sayeed, Jonathan
Woodcock, Mike


Scott, Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Shersby, Michael





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bermingham, Gerald


Allen, Graham
Bidwell, Sydney


Alton, David
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Donald
Bradley, Keith


Armstrong, Hilary
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buchan, Norman


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Buckley, George J.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Battle, John
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Beith, A. J.
Canavan, Dennis


Bell, Stuart
Cartwright, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)





Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lambie, David


Clay, Bob
Lamond, James


Clelland, David
Leighton, Ron


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cohen, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Coleman, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Livingstone, Ken


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Cousins, Jim
McAllion, John


Cox, Tom
McAvoy, Thomas


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Cummings, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKelvey, William


Cunningham, Dr John
McLeish, Henry


Dalyell, Tam
McNamara, Kevin


Darling, Alistair
McTaggart, Bob


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McWilliam, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dewar, Donald
Mallon, Seamus


Dixon, Don
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Doran, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Douglas, Dick
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Martlew, Eric


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michael, Alun


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliott


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mullin, Chris


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, John
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Neill, Martin


Galbraith, Sam
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Galloway, George
Parry, Robert


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Patchett, Terry


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Pike, Peter L.


George, Bruce
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Prescott, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Primarolo, Dawn


Gould, Bryan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Graham, Thomas
Radice, Giles


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Redmond, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Reid, Dr John


Grocott, Bruce
Richardson, Jo


Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Robertson, George


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robinson, Geoffrey


Haynes, Frank
Rogers, Allan


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rooker, Jeff


Hinchliffe, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rowlands, Ted


Home Robertson, John
Ruddock, Joan


Hood, Jimmy
Sedgemore, Brian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Janner, Greville
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


John, Brynmor
Soley, Clive


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Squire, Robin


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Steinberg, Gerry


Kirkwood, Archy
Strang, Gavin






Straw, Jack
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Vaz, Keith
Worthington, Tony


Wall, Pat
Wray, Jimmy


Walley, Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert N.
Tellers for the Noes:


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Adam Ingram.


Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 22 accordingly disagreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2, 207 to 217, 3 to 10, 12 to 16, and 18 to 21 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 17 agreed to.

Clause 116

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AS TO CERTAIN AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 171, in page 64, line 3, at end insert—
(3) Each relevant authority which is a charging authority in relation to the Personal Community Charge shall, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, make arrangements for—
(a) the administration of the Community Charge Additional Element as specified in paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 13 below; and
(b) the calculation in each year from 1 April 1990 of its Personal Community Charge in relation to the national average charge for that year, for the purposes of determining whether any person in its area may be eligible for the Community Charge Additional Element."

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 300, 302 to 304 and 390.

Mr. Ridley: Throughout the passage of the Bill we have been able to modify it in sensible ways to reflect genuinely held concerns and many amendments have been made. We have demonstrated our flexibility and our desire to meet good cases, but these amendments come up against one of the fundamental principles of the community charge and no compromise is possible. Therefore, I invite the House to disagree with them.
The amendments are complex, but their purpose is straightforward. They provide that people who are disabled, as defined in Lords amendment No. 303, and who receive rebates should receive in addition to their rebate an element equal to the difference between 20 per cent. of the average community charge and 20 per cent. of the community charge that they have to pay. In a somewhat roundabout way the amendment seeks to ensure that disabled people on low incomes are fully compensated for the fact that they have to pay the charge, whatever it is. The amendments adopt this indirect approach because in Committee the other place defeated an amendment by Lord Allen seeking 100 per cent. rebates for disabled people which would have been a straightforward way of achieving the same purpose.
The amendments as drafted are defective and would not achieve the effect they intend, but it is because of the policy behind them that the Government cannot accept them. Under our proposed rebate arrangements people whose net income is at or below income support level will be entitled to 80 per cent. rebates and income support recipients will also have an element included in their benefit, reflecting 20 per cent. of the average community charge. That means that someone living in an area where the community charge is below the national average will be in pocket, while people who live in areas where the charge is higher than the average will have to use a small amount of their income support to make up the difference. The fundamental principle which the amendment breaches is that everyone should have a direct interest in the level of their community charge.

Mr. John Maxton: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Scotland there is a charitable hospital, the Erskine hospital for the military disabled, for people who have been so severely wounded during their military service that they cannot continue to live outside? There are houses within the grounds in which some disabled people live. Under this law those in the hospital itself will be wholly exempt. Those living in the houses, who at present pay no rates because they are part of a charitable hospital, will have to pay the community charge. Because they are on war disability pensions, they will certainly pay above the 20 per cent. level, if not the full charge. How does the Secretary of State explain to people who have given so much in service to their country that the Government will force them to pay taxes which they have never paid previously?

Mr. Ridley: I do not know of that hospital or the circumstances of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. The rebate system is available and, as he knows, benefits have been uprated to meet the 20 per cent.

Mr. Maxton: It is absolutely shameful.

Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman gets the local authority in which the hospital is located to have a reasonable community charge, many of those people will be in pocket as a result, and not losing.
Our whole policy aims to ensure that in taking spending decisions local authorities know that they will have an impact on all charge payers in their area who can then pass judgment in local elections. We have provided exemptions only where accountability clearly cannot work—for example, in the case of severely mentally handicapped people. There have been some serious misunderstandings on that point. In the past few days several individual cases have featured in press and radio discussions of these amendments and all the cases of which I am aware concern mentally handicapped young people living with their parents. All those individuals on the facts described would be exempt from the personal community charge. Under no circumstances would they be required to pay anything, so no question of a rebate would arise.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Ridley: I am not giving way.
I hope that I have cleared up those misunderstandings about mentally handicapped people. Obviously, those who


do not have the capacity to comprehend the community charge should not be asked to pay it. The same is not true of people who are physically handicapped. That is the key reason why we must disagree with their Lordships over this amendment.
In moving the amendment in another place Lord Allen of Abbeydale made clear the thinking behind it when he said:
to my mind, it is unrealistic to believe that the people I am talking about—namely, the blind, the halt, the lame and the mentally handicapped—should be seriously considered to be reasonable voters, balancing and assessing these nice considerations."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 July 1988; Vol. 499, c. 148.]
I find that an extraordinary statement, and one that I suspect many physically handicapped people would find patronising. if not offensive. A physical handicap is no bar to playing a part in local democracy, as many people have proved. I do not accept that the majority of such disabled people would agree that they should be given special treatment in this one respect. I emphasise the words "in this one respect", because our proposed rebate system is specifically directed towards meeting the special needs of those disabled people who are not exempt, including their need to meet the 20 per cent. contribution. The rebate system is based on the net income levels used for income support.

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose——

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Ridley: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) but, as this is a short debate, I shall not give way again.

Mr. Dalyell: Anyone who has the privilege of knowing Lord Allen of Abbeydale knows that one thing he is not is patronising. Is the Secretary of State saying that he is wrong in his assessment of the human reaction of the blind and other disabled people?

Mr. Ridley: I strongly disagree with anybody who says that disabled people have not the ability to play their part in democracy, whether it be local or national. As the basis of the charge is that people put in funds to the minimum extent necessary to pay the minimum 20 per cent. of that charge—they have an incentive to vote according to which party they think will be the better stewards of the council—it would deny those people the respect that the House should accord to them.

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose——

Mr. Ridley: I said that I would not give way again.
The rebate system is based on the net income levels used for income support. Those are £13·05 a week higher for disabled people than for their able-bodied counterparts. Moreover, £15 of any income that disabled people have is disregarded for rebate purposes, as opposed to £5 for able-bodied people. The whole of any mobility or attendance allowance is disregarded as well as the first £5 of any war pension. Those are very generous arrangements, which, when applied to our proposed rebate system for this charge, will ensure that all will be able to afford their 20 per cent.
Understandably, there has been concern about the position of disabled people who live in some high-spending inner-city areas. That has been based on forecasts of the community charge at current spending levels. There is

ample scope for reduction in spending by 1990. Last month we announced illustrative figures for the community charge based on budgets for this financial year. In the extreme example of Camden, which has already been quoted in this context, the figures show a reduction of £143 from the illustrative charge based on last year's spending. There is no reason why that reduction should not continue and every reason to believe that it will. It is in the hands of the local authority to reduce it still further if it is concerned about disabled people or people with lower means.
That people in some areas will pay more community charge than others is not arbitrary, nor an accident of geography, but the result of deliberate spending decisions by local authorities. It is not true that Camden needs to raise more from its community charge payers because, as an inner-city area, it has greater needs. The Government grant system acknowledges that different areas have different needs. For example, Camden's assessment shows a need to spend at the rate of £1,181 per adult, which is more than twice that of an area such as Guildford, with an assessment of £576. Therefore, the grant system acknowledges such variation in need and is so arranged that an authority, whether urban or rural, spending at need would require a community charge of £202. The gap between that and the £639 that Camden would have to charge if it spends at this year's level is quite simply a measure of overspending.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: rose——

Mr. Ridley: I said that I would not give way. I want to let the debate take place.
It is an essential part of our proposed system that those who take such spending decisions should be accountable to all those capable of taking part in the democratic process. Physically disabled people certainly fall within that category. We have ensured that their special needs are taken care of in the rebate system and we have provided that people who are unable to play a part in local democracy because of severe mental disability will be exempt.
I accept that these amendments were made in another place because of a genuinely held anxiety about disabled people, but I believe there may have been some misunderstanding about the basis of the exemption for severely mentally handicapped people. The Government's record of helping disabled people is superior to that of any of their predecessors. Their needs are fully taken account of in our proposals and this extra help is unnecessary and goes against the principle of the Bill. I suggest that the House reject the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should inform the House that this amendment involves privilege.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I shall begin by putting the words of Lord Allen of Abbeygate into their correct context. I thought that it was not permissible within our Standing Orders to quote those in another place who are not Ministers, but, as the Secretary of State has been allowed to do so, I presume that I shall be allowed to do the same. Lord Allen said:
Whatever the complexion of the authority, it is difficult to see how many authorities in the inner-city areas with high social needs will ever be anything but above the average … It is not practicable for the poor disabled people of whom I am talking simply to up sticks and move to another area.


Immediately after the words quoted by the Secretary of State—
assessing these nice considerations
Lord Allen said:
That is simply not the real world. Most of them will never struggle to the polling booths at all or wrestle with postal voting papers. Moreover, if they do, although I am no politician, it seems to me that they and their families are more likely to vote against the political party which has put them into this mess rather than trying to turn out the councillors responsible for supplying them with their much needed social services."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 5 July 1988; Vol. 499, c. 148.]
That is a fair assessment of Lord Allen's speech.
If this were a matter of either an 80 or a 100 per cent. rebate for the disabled, we would be speaking to another set of amendments altogether. These amendments have been tabled only because, in some panic during the general election last year, the Government announced that all poor people on means-tested benefits would have the minimum 20 per cent. poll tax added to their benefits. That was announced by another Minister. It was made clear later that the amount added to the national benefit scales would be 20 per cent. based on the national average, not the actual 20 per cent. of the poll tax. If we are not saying that every local authority, every village, every town, every shire or every city should be the same, clearly for some the poll tax will be more than the average and for some it will be less. The amendment ensures that the poor disabled on means-tested income support will not suffer by having to pay more than 20 per cent.
The Secretary of State mentioned accountability, but he has not said that in those areas where the poll tax is below average the poor disabled will receive not a 100 per cent. rebate, but a 105 per cent., 110 per cent. or even more. They will make a net gain. How does that improve their accountability with the local council? The argument about accountability is complete fiction.
On 5 July the Lords carried an amendment to make sure that the poor disabled get what was intended. During the general election, Ministers sought to imply, "We will operate the benefits to take account of the 20 per cent." I want to use only one set of figures.

Mr. Ridley: During the general election, and indeed on a television broadcast with the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who is not here, but I do not blame him for that, I made it absolutely clear that it was 20 per cent. of the average and not of each community charge. There was no doubt about that.

Mr. Rooker: Whatever the Secretary of State might have said on television, that was not implied in the original statement. He did not spell it out in the reality of the pounds that people must spend. On last year's figures, the national average poll tax figure that was given to us was £225. We know that 20 per cent. of that is £45. That will be added to the national benefits scales.
6.30 pm
A poor disabled person may live in an area in which the poll tax is £325. I am not talking about the type of authorities to which the Secretary of State referred. There will be many areas above and below, within a margin of, say, £100. Many will be way above—several hundreds of pounds in some inner London authorities. Let us say that it is £325, and of course 25 per cent. of that is £65. The

poor disabled will have to find £20 for food and fuel. That is the reality, and this amendment will prevent that reality coming about. They may live in a poll tax area that is below average. A good example is Kensington. The new hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) mentioned £122. That is what the Conservative party said. Twenty per cent. in Kensington is only £24, yet the benefit will be increased by £45. It does not seem fair. As Lord Allen said, disabled people cannot pull up sticks and move. It is not as simple as that in the world outside, whatever the Secretary of State might think.

Mr. Wigley: Is it not coming over clearly to the House that the Secretary of State is using disabled people as a lever in high rate areas that might have high poll taxes? Is it not disgraceful that disabled people should be used in that way for the party political purposes of the Conservative party?

Mr. Rooker: It is the intention of the Conservative party—it is obscene, but it is its intention—to force poor disabled people on means-tested benefits to spearhead campaigns in local authority areas to cut the poll tax to destroy their own services. That is what the Conservative party wants. It wants the bizarre situation in which poor disabled people lead campaigns to cut the very services on which they depend.
The other place should at least have an opportunity—I suspect that it will—to look at the obscenity that the Secretary of State is proposing to the House. After all the concessions that the Government are alleged to have given—as one of my hon. Friends said, they give millions of pounds to salmon owners in Scotland—they come here to screw the poor disabled, while seeking to give the impression that such people will have their benefits made up. They will not. It is a fraud and we should support the Lords.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The panic in the last election occurred on Opposition Benches, when Opposition Members found their credibility ebbing away, largely because of the Government's record on spending on the disabled. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) looked at the spending figures, he would see the Government's record, with an 80 per cent. increase in real terms. Two thirds may represent an increase in numbers, but one third, representing £1 billion, represents real terms increases per person. The hon. Gentleman should bear that point in mind.
We are not debating whether we should help the disabled but how we should best help them, and whether we should help them through social security benefits or by tampering with the basic principle of the community charge, which is fair and means that everybody should pay. Disabled people can play their part in society the same as everybody else. There is no reason to suppose that we should tamper with the community charge. We should look at the benefits and consider whether social security benefits are good enough.
The average increase in reforms is £4·50 per week for the disabled and long-term sick on income support. We are talking about an average increase of £4·50 a week. If we look at the extra payments that might be called for in high-spending areas and work out the figures for Camden, on the present figures—there is scope for them to improve


—the maximum amount that people are likely to pay is £1·30 per week. The two figures are completely out of kilter.
It may be that an individual does not get the £4·50 per week, because of the way in which the social security reforms work, but is liable to pay the £1·30. We know that the social security reforms will be monitored. I look for changes in the administration of social security rather than a blanket increase to help the small number of individuals who may be affected.
Their Lordships were confused. If they had looked at the social security legislation they would have realised that that is the area in which we should act to secure benefits. If we rule out the ILEA element, we are talking about only 70p a week in Camden. In Greenwich, it is 30p a week less, so there we are talking about only 40p. They are relatively small sums of money to set against an increase on average of £4·50 a week.
That is the Government's record. The Government are helping the long-term disabled and sick. Conservative Members are helping them properly, through the social security reforms, not by tampering with every other piece of legislation. We do not ask that electricity should be cheaper for the sick and disabled. We ask them to play their proper part in society and to pay their bills the same as everybody else does. But if they need help, we should help them through social security reforms. If hon. Members find examples of people who are not being properly helped, I ask them to call for changes in social security arrangements, not to look for massive changes in the administration of the community charge. That is the way to do it.
Hon. Members should remember the Government's excellent record on the long-term sick and disabled, with an 80 per cent. increase in spending. There are increases in invalidity benefit, attendance allowance, mobility allowance, industrial disability benefit, and the earnings limit allowances to which my hon. Friend has referred. High-spending councils should consider the ways in which they have been profligate, and should not load burdens on to the disabled. They should cut their spending accordingly.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister's speech was insensitive and, some may think, deeply unworthy of any debate on these important amendments. It gave the impression that we on this side of the House—and, by implication, the majority by which Lord Allen's amendments were approved by the House of Lords—are engaged in party warfare against him. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the amendments were carried in another place with the support of Conservative peers who were acknowledged to speak with a lifetime's experience of the problems of disabled people.
This is not principally a conflict between the two sides of this House, but one that divides the Secretary of State from voluntary organisations of such renown that they have become household names in this country. The conflict is also one between the Secretary of State and disabled people themselves.
My purpose in intervening in the debate is to let the House hear what disabled people and their organisations are known to feel about the Government's decision to oppose Lord Allen's amendments. In a letter sent to me for this debate, Ian Bruce, the director general of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, states:

On behalf of the estimated 40,000 visually handicapped people on income support, I would ask you to encourage the Government not to take this backward step. Poverty does not foster accountability: there is no greater harrier to involvement in the community for disabled people than financial hardship. We believe that the benefit system fails adequately to recognise the additional costs of disability. Rejecting this amendment can only increase those costs for many elderly blind people.
That is not the language of party politics but one of anxious concern for some of the most vulnerable people from a distinguished representative of their cause.
Listen also to Brian Lamb, speaking for the Spastics Society, and the very severely disabled people whom it represents. He was quoted last weekend as saying:
A total rebate would cost the government peanuts but the alternative may cost some disabled people their independence.
For MENCAP, Sir Geoffrey Dalton, its secretary general, has put it to me as follows:
May I … point out that these amendments will promote community care … We believe that the Bill as amended in the House of Lords will enable … disabled people to play their part in community accountability, and will … provide appropriate compensation to … people on low incomes, irrespective of geographical location. We urge you to resist any attempt to reverse these amendments.
For the Secretary of State to have given the impression that this is simply an exercise in party politics is an outrageous misrepresentation of those in the voluntary organisations who conceived and, by persuasive advocacy, won majority support for the amendment in another place. I hope that the House will do them as much justice tonight.
There can be no doubt whatever that, if the amendments are now defeated, more disabled people will find themselves in residential institutions where, as the House knows, poll tax will not be payable. The Government sloganise about community care, but the reality of their approach to these amendments is that they are content to condemn more and more disabled people to institutional care. Their policy is not only wrong but self-defeating and inhumane. It will cost the public purse more than the extremely modest cost of the amendments and is thus irresponsible in financial terms.
The amounts that we are discussing are trivial to the Treasury but, as Brian Lamb said for the Spastics Society, they are huge to people desperate to stay in their homes and to parents caring for their severely disabled adult children. It has been estimated that, in some localities, they will have to find in excess of £100 a year. They are people for whom every pound is a. struggle to find.
This is a timely debate. It comes on the day of the publication by the King's Fund Institute of an independent report by Virginia Beardshaw entitled "Last on the List: Community Services for People with Physical Disabilities". I quote the first two sentences of the report's conclusions:
This report paints a bleak picture. It highlights substantial inadequacies in the health and social services currently available to disabled people.
That is a report that the Secretary of State should read. If he does, he must agree that to defeat these amendments will pile handicap on handicap for disabled people. The Government promised to single out disabled people for special help. The defeat of these amendments will single them out for special hardship.
It cannot be emphasised too strongly that these amendments seek only to ensure that disabled people on low incomes will receive a genuine 100 per cent. rebate, irrespective of where they live. We were told by The


Sunday Times last weekend that the decision by the Secretary of State to resist the amendments will trigger a Tory rebellion at the end of the debate. Much to his credit, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) was quoted as saying:
We will be doing what we can … to persuade the Government not to reverse these amendments. A considerable number of disabled people will be hit hard.
I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman's views, speaking as he does as an hon. Member who has given outstanding service to many organisations of and for disabled people, will be listened to with respect by Conservative Members. I ask his colleagues not to act party politically but to join in supporting amendments which, outside the House, have won enormous support from people of all parties and of none.

Mr. Hannam: I have listened carefully to the explanation given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for asking the House to reject the Lords amendment, which seeks to give parity to all disabled people on low incomes. I regret to say that I cannot accept the Government's position. I say that with some regret because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), in all other respects I have the greatest admiration for the help given to the handicapped by the Government.
Here we have a compassionate measure introduced in the other place by Lord Allen of Abbeydale, the president of MENCAP and a former much respected senior civil servant. It was supported by 124 peers of all parties and has the backing of all the major disablement charities, plus the Royal College of Nursing. The amendment provides a formula whereby the maximum rebate level not only applies where the community charge is lower than or equal to the national average but ensures that disabled people on low incomes in all areas get the 100 per cent. rebate. The amendment is designed primarily to help those people who are disabled and on income support—the poorest of the disabled. Only those people will receive 100 per cent. rebate, regardless of where they live. That is the crux of the debate.
The Government's position, which I can understand in theory, is that these people will receive a 100 per cent. rebate only if they live in an area where the community charge is average or below average and that in higher spending authorities the principle of voting accountability must apply. Being what it means, an average has to produce a large number above the median level and a large number below, and the highest charges will generally fall in deprived inner-city areas where greater concentrations of low-income disabled people inevitably live.
In effect, the Government are saying that a disabled person on a low income living in a local authority area where the community charge will be average or below average will get a 100 per cent. rebate, or even, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has admitted, more than 100 per cent. A poor disabled resident who lives in an above-average spending area will, for the sake of a theoretical voting pressure, have to pay the extra and will not get a full rebate, and this extra will amount to £75 or £100 each year.
What are these people supposed to do? Like most severely disabled, blind or mentally subnormal people living in the community, they cannot easily move across the boundary into another area. First, the cost of moving is far too great, and, secondly, suitable housing and support facilities would have to be available in the area. This is particularly unrealistic if we look at the number of special needs housing and mobility starts made now compared with 10 years ago. The number has decreased from 10,560 then to only 1,239 last year. We have reached a plateau of special needs housing, which means that there is not the flexibility to allow those disabled people to move easily from one area to another. In inner-city areas there are more low-income disabled, and their needs are one reason why those areas often have higher than average expenditure.
The alternative for those disabled people and for the mentally subnormal, who are often included in this category, is to stay in institutional care. This is one of the great worries of disablement organisations, especially the Royal College of Nursing, which has written specifically about this to me.
People in residential care do not have to pay the community charge, but if they move out into the community they will be liable to pay it. That runs counter to the Government's philosophy on the care in the community programme. Surely we should not penalise disabled people for moving into the community just because that area happens to have a high-spending local authority as opposed to a low-spending one.
The principle of accountability for this small group of people, which runs through the debate and about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is anxious, is liable to act as a direct disincentive to the care in the community programme. Going back into residential care would, of course, cost astronomically more than the amount that would be required to make up the 100 per cent. rebate.
What kind of disabled family are we talking about? Often, we find that one disabled person marries another disabled person. As we know, the community charge multiplies the payment that has to be made by the number of people in the household. Many disabled people are married, and they may have a handicapped child. There are many cases of families with two or three disabled and handicapped people living in the same house and needing special care at home. Often, they are not sufficiently severely mentally handicapped to qualify for exemption. From postbags and constituency experience, all hon. Members know of the stresses and strains inherent in looking after such handicapped adults in the family. Is it right to force another financial burden on those families, just because they happen to live in an inner-city area rather than in one where the community charge is lower than the average?
When the Scottish Bill was going through the House of Lords, Lord Glenarthur, the Minister, gave a commitment that certain groups of disabled people would be eligible for 100 per cent. rebates. He repeated the commitment when he was questioned, but it was never honoured, although the Government carried out their side of the bargain, to the extent that they wanted, through the income support level and its uprating. The increase of £1·25, which is the national weekly average of the community charge, is hardly 100 per cent. compensation for the community charge in high-spending areas. A disabled person in a


below-average area will get more than 100 per cent. of the charge, whereas others, who are equally poor and disabled but who live in above-average areas, will be penalised.
Lord Allen's vital amendment seeks to ensure that disabled people on benefit will not face a new financial burden because of the community charge. The crucial point is that that does not contradict the basic principle of the Bill. Disabled people on low incomes will still have to make an initial payment of their community charge for the cost of local services. They will then have to apply for the rebate, which they will receive at a later date. All of them will receive the initial impact of the expenditure of their local authority and the amount that they will have to pay, so accountability will be preserved, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is so anxious to ensure.
The amount of money involved is not large from the Government's perspective, but for the disabled person on the bottom level of income and who faces all the extra costs associated with disability, an extra £10, £20, £25, £50 or £75 can represent an impossible burden. I understand my right hon. Friend's concern about accountabilty and I support that principle. But when it is applied differently in different areas to people with similar disabilities it is wrong. I ask my hon. Friends to join me in voting for the retention of this worthwhile and compassionate amendment.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: When we discuss Lords amendment No. 171, we must consider Lords amendments Nos. 300, 302, 303 and 304, although they are timetabled to be debated later on. Lords amendment No. 171 is essentially a paving amendment to others that seek to help people with disabilities.
The amendment was proposed in the other place by the Cross Bencher, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and it seeks to help elderly and disabled people to pay their poll tax. It is similar in that respect to amendments tabled by myself and others in the House of Commons. There are, however, crucial differences between the amendment that I moved and Lords amendment No. 171. I sought to introduce a potential 100 per cent. rebate for those on certain benefits. The Government's response was that the amendment was unacceptable because it undermined the concept of accountability. Lord Allen did all that he could to take that point on board and he modified his amendment as a result.
Under the amendment, all old and disabled people, as defined by eligibility by certain benefits, will still have to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax. In theory, they should get that 20 per cent. contribution back through upratings in benefit that the Government have promised. As has been said, the problem is that the uprating will be based on the national average for the poll tax, so that people living in areas of higher than average poll tax will be out of pocket. Those people—by definition—will be the most vulnerable members of the community. Without exception, they will be those least able to pay the poll tax.
The Lord Allen amendment proposes a community charge additional element to help those who would otherwise lose. It would bridge the gap between the amount that they receive in their benefit towards their 20 per cent. contribution and their actual poll tax liability.
In promising benefit upratings, the Government acknowledge that the very poorest need help in paying their 20 per cent. poll tax contribution. It is on the basis of

need that that help will be given. However, by linking the upratings to the national average poll tax level the Government would create a hopelessly imprecise system. Some people will not have enough to meet their poll tax bill, whereas others will gain. By contrast the amendment seeks to target resources precisely. It would carry through what the Government said they would do and what they acknowledge is necessary. After all, they are giving the money because it is needed; it is not a handout. It is riot a reward for living in a low-spending authority area. Its non-payment is not a penalty for living in a high-spending authority area. It is based on need.

Mr. David Wilshire: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the Government and the Bill will not cause people to be out of pocket? It is the high-spending authorities that will cause the problems.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we are talking not about the present arrangements but about the arrangements that the Government wish to introduce, and that is an end to the matter.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Lords amendment prescribe that excess relief in low-spending authorities should be withdrawn and, if not, where is the logic in that?

Mr. Taylor: If the Government or the hon. Gentleman should wish to propose such an amendment to help the disabled people who will lose, it would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However, that is not the basis of the Government's argument, which is that there should be a penalty and an attempt to bribe people into voting one way or another—or more accurately, as they cannot do without the money, to force them to vote one way or the other.
The precise targeting of benefit is one of the stock lines of the Department of Health and Social Security. We hear it from the Government whenever they threaten to abolish the universal payment of child benefit. Ministers tell us that resources must be directed to where they are needed most. Why, then, do they propose to add amounts to benefits that will be more than some people need but much less than others need? It is not even sensible in the Government's financial terms because it will force people out of community care and into residential care. That will cost more in the end because those disabled people will be unable to vote for proper community care services within their local authority.
Perhaps the most despicable argument advanced by the Government against the amendment is that it would cost too much. A report in The Guardian on 19 July—no doubt the result of a Department of the Environment briefing—said that the Government found Lord Allen's proposal unacceptable because it could cost up to £100 million in lost poll tax revenue. But that £100 million of revenue represents the amount paid by the very poorest among the old and the disabled.

Mr. Ridley: I may make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that in no circumstances should The Guardian ever be taken as representing what is one word of Government policy.

7 pm

Mr. Taylor: Perhaps the Secretary of State will elaborate. Can he tell the House whether the figure of £100 million is one that the Department of the Environment calculated, and whether it gave it to The Guardian? Can he confirm whether that is the scale of the expected cost? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to answer that question, obviously the answer must be yes.
As I have said, that £100 million is the amount that will be paid by the very poorest and the oldest in meeting the differences between the help they receive in benefit to pay poll tax and their actual poll tax bill. It is not money from benefits but money from their own pockets. It is money that the Government said the very poorest—let alone the elderly and the disabled—would not have to pay. It is money that the Government said they needed to live on, to heat their homes, and to clothe themselves. Yet the Government will not allow them that money if the Lords amendment is rejected. If those payments add up to £100 million, that in itself is a condemnation of the poll tax. It is a £100 million tax bill being dumped on the elderly and disabled, with no rebate, no extra benefit, and no assistance being given.
Conservative Members who have voted for a certain level of benefit, because the Government recognised the needs of the elderly and the disabled, should reflect on the fact that if they now back the Government in rejecting the Lords amendment, they are saying to them, "We said that you needed those benefits, and that you could not get by without them. But if you are unlucky enough to live in the area of a local authority that spends above the average, you will have those benefits taken away from you." Do Conservative Members accept that there is still that need for benefits, or will they reject that and go for the greed of a Government who would rather buy votes than accept their responsibilities?

Sir George Young: I hope that the House will leave the Lords amendment untouched. I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he advised the House to resist the amendment. His argument rested on accountability, and that the philosophy behind the Bill was that councils should take spending decisions in the knowledge that they will have an impact on all the community charge payers in their area. He commented that it was patronising towards the disabled to exempt them and that they wanted to be treated as ordinary members of the community.
My right hon. Friend's case begins to disintegrate, however, because the Government have accepted exemption for a group of people who have a lesser claim than those for whom the amendment seeks exemption. I refer to residents of nursing homes and residential care homes, many of which hon. Members have visited in their own constituencies. Everyone in such homes is entitled to vote. Many of them benefit from local authority services, particularly if the residential care home is run by a local authority. Many have substantial sums of money and are well off. Others suffer no disability but are simply fragile. They are all totally insulated from the community charge, and the Government have said that they are not part of the accountability argument.
If such people are to be exempt, and if they are to be no worse off because of the community charge, the poor and disabled have at least as strong a case for exemption. I

have general reservations about the whole impact of this policy, but if the Government have exempted well-off people in nursing homes—who can vote, who benefit from local authority services, and who know what is going on—then, in fairness, the Government ought also to insulate the poor and the disabled, whom another place has quite rightly identified in this amendment.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Tonight is an occasion for frank speaking. We ought to recognise and remember that we hold in trust the hopes of many thousands of very severely disabled people. The House must choose between defending their interests and being spurred on by political claptrap. We have heard a great deal of political claptrap from the Secretary of State, who should be ashamed of the speech that he made. He was wise to refuse interruptions because, although he doubtless read his brief very well, he made one of the worst cases that I have heard for a very long time.
It really gets my goat when the Government say it is a matter of pride for the disabled to participate in society, but then proceed to kick them, to hit their pockets, and to pretend that they are concerned with the pride of disabled people. If we are concerned about the disabled, the way to help them to keep their pride is to give them enough cash to live decently. The Secretary of State greatly upsets me when he claims that giving assistance would be to patronise the disabled. It is only patronising if one talks down to the disabled and says, "Of course they can play their part in society", but then refuses to help them. I am very sorry that the Secretary of State unfortunately made the kind of speech that he did.
Lords amendment No. 171 gives to very disabled people on income support a 100 per cent. rebate of community charge, regardless of where they live, whereas the Government are forcing them to be reluctant participants in a monstrous lottery. In that enforced gamble, the disabled will win or lose according to where they live. The Secretary of State was wrong to say that it is not a matter of geography, because it is. The outcome will depend entirely on where a person lives as to whether he will gain or lose. The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that most disabled are very poor and cannot afford to move. They find themselves hopelessly and helplessly trapped where they are, and they are being cornered by the Government. I believe that that is the Government's intention.
I do not want to get too personal, but I wish to warn the Secretary of State that people are very worried that the Government are not doing what they can to help the disabled. In the House of Lords, Conservative peers were simply trying to help the severely disabled. I refer not to someone who has lost a finger or who is hard of hearing, but to the severely disabled.
Tonight, the House must be left in no doubt about the consequences of voting down this amendment. The first consequence will be the imposition of severe and, in some cases, unbearable burdens on the losers among the severely disabled. I accept the Secretary of State's assurance that the mentally handicapped will not be included. He was right to correct their Lordships on that point, and I accept his correction. Nevertheless, there remain the gravely disabled who are paralysed or fragile and who are unable to wash, dress or feed themselves. They are in a dreadful situation. I am not speaking of people suffering only from


minor physical blemishes. They will be the losers if this amendment is defeated, and I hope that Conservative Members will bear that in mind.
Rejecting the amendment will mean dividing families, because some disabled people will be forced into institutions. There is no shadow of doubt about that. That will be at enormous personal cost to the people involved and tremendous financial cost to the Government.
Forcing severely disabled people into institutions is to rob them of their independence. That is the crime of totalitarian Governments across the world—I place it as high as that. It is serious to rob anybody of his or her independence, yet that is what will happen if the amendment is defeated. I beg the Secretary of State to reconsider and I beg his supporters, who are entitled to back him on other issues, to think again.
The defeat of the amendment will expose Ministers as dogmatic and heartless political theorists acting on a bogus political principle against people who are helpless. It will also establish the amazing precedent of a Government admitting their willingness—indeed, determination—to hit some very severely disabled people. No verbal dexterity can rationalise or excuse that.
The defeat of the amendment will provoke the House of Lords into bringing it forward again and embarrassing the Government. If the Secretary of State wants to challenge that group in the House of Lords, it is a matter for his political judgment. I think that he is making a terrible political error, and I urge him to think again. I urge Conservative Members to ensure that the amendment is not defeated. If they obey the party Whips, they will be condoning a disgraceful and shameful attack on the most vulnerable members of our society. Only a sick society and a pathetic House of Commons would allow that.

Mr. John Maples: The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is always listened to with great respect when he speaks on this subject. He has, as always, spoken with great conviction and passion on behalf of the disabled. His arguments may amount to a good case for more generous treatment of the disabled by our social security system, but I do not think—I hope that I can demonstrate why—that his arguments amount to a case for a blanket exemption from a general system of local taxation, which is different.
The Labour party's enthusiasm for the amendment makes one wonder why it did not propose it and why it waited for an Independent peer to do so. It makes one wonder whether their enthusiasm is slightly artificial and whether it is yet another opportunity to make mischief and drag out the debate.
The provisions in the amendment are unnecessary and misconceived. They are unnecessary because already under the rebate system substantial additional provisions are made for the disabled, designed to take account of their additional needs, and that is right. The applicable amounts for deduction from the incomes of disabled people are considerably higher. If disabled people were receiving the additional social security benefit to which they are entitled, they could be receiving an income of up to about £80 a week more than an able-bodied person before losing any of their community charge rebate. Therefore, a substantial move has already been made towards making the system easier on the disabled.
We are talking about relatively small sums of money. I know that what may appear to be small sums of money for

most of us may not be so for those on benefit. However, in this case we are talking about small sums of money. The large community charge figures bandied around are notional figures. They ignore the safety net. I think that I am right in saying that of all the community charge areas in London that will have high figures, very few of them will be over £300 or £350 in the first year of the safety net. Therefore, we are talking about £20 or £25 over the year, or about 40p a week.
I do not believe that the community charge in areas such as mine—Lewisham—will be equivalent to the figures bandied about. Enormous savings can be made and there are five years in which to make them. The scope for the reduction of the community charge is great. Lewisham at present has a notional figure of £575. Incidentally, it is £100 less than last year, with no appreciable pain and suffering among the users of Lewisham council's services. The scope for reducing that by a further £100 a year for another three years and having a community charge of about £275 is easy to realise. If that is the case, one would be talking about the amendment saving people about 30p or 40p a week. Therefore, we are talking about a minimal sum.
7.15 pm
The amendment is misconceived for two reasons. First, it runs counter to the principle of accountability, which is central to the idea of the community charge. That principle is that people should play some role in local government by their vote or their participation in it. It makes sense to exempt the mentally handicapped on the ground that they cannot participate, but it is palpably untrue to say that the physically handicapped cannot do so.
Secondly, there may be arguments for providing particular groups in our community with additional social security benefit. However, those are not of themselves arguments for exempting those people from particular systems of taxation. I believe the contrary. It is part of the universal benefits argument. It results in the misapplication of money. If disabled people ought to be receiving higher social security benefit, let us have an argument about that. However, it is not an argument for exempting them from part of a general system of taxation. There are plenty of other groups which I am sure the Opposition could latch on to in the same way if they so desired.
If this is such an important matter and such an important principle is at stake, one cannot help wondering why the Opposition did not think of it themselves. I cannot understand why they did not propose it in respect of the 20 per cent. of rates that people have to pay in the intervening period.

Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that we are under a guillotine motion, but what the hon. Gentleman is saying from a Central Office brief is not true. The Labour party proposed the amendments in Committee and the Government rejected them.

Mr. Maples: I do not think that that was a point of order and I am reading, not from a Central Office brief, but from my own handwriting. I asked why the Opposition needed an Independent peer to propose the amendment and why they did not do so themselves.

Mr. Rooker: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Maples: It leads one to believe that they are jumping on a bandwagon that somebody else has set in motion. The Opposition are dragging out this debate on something that is unnecessary and misconceived.

Mr. Douglas: I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) who referred to a group of people who will be totally exempt from the community charge—those who live in residential homes. What do politicians do when elections are called, either for local government or central Government? One of the first groups of people that we ensure are covered by the provision of a vote are those who reside in old folks' homes. We want them to vote. The Secretary of State's principle of accountability is nullified in relation to that group of people.
In my constituency we would be foolish politicians if we did not make darn sure early in the campaign that everyone who is eligible is given a postal vote. However, the Secretary of State says that he is exempting that group of people. Where is the principle of accountability?
The Secretary of State said that we have maligned the disabled because there is a suggestion that they are not fit to participate in the affairs of the community. What does the Secretary of State have to say about the severely mentally handicapped who are exempt under the Bill? Does that mean that someone who is exempt under this obnoxious Bill should be removed from the electoral roll? Is that a quid pro quo?
Earlier, the Minister of State alluded to my perambulations. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members want to cry, "Stupid," from a sedentary position, let me tell them that the Minister of State alluded to my perambulations. I do not want to detain the House in this important debate, but my impression, within the past two or three weeks, is that the more the people of this country know about the Bill, the less they like it. I challenge any of the pussy-footing guys on the other side of the House to come back with me to Edinburgh and explain the Bill to the folk, particularly in England.
My last speech of the last Parliament related to the subject of the severely mentally handicapped. The Bill states:
A person is severely mentally handicapped if he is suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which involves severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning.
That must be certified by a medical practitioner. The Secretary of State is not just asking people to identify the poor, which is bad enough; he is also asking people with elderly relatives to identify them so that they can obtain exemption when this spurious piece of legislation is on the statute book. I believe that, on other occasions, the Secretary of State is quite humane.
This is a farce of a Bill. The more people get to know about it, the less they like it. If it is so good, why do we not all have it at the same time? If it is so good, let us all have it in 1989 or, conversely, let the people of Scotland wait until 1990, like the rest of the people in the United Kingdom, so that we can all suffer equally.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has won the argument to date. He has a record of working very hard on issues of this kind; that is well recognised on both sides of the House.
I am sorry to have to say it, but the principle of everyone paying at least 20 per cent. is not the only valuable principle. It has its merits, and I certainly support it as a general principle, but that does not mean that there cannot be any exceptions to it. Legislating is to do with general principles. It is also to do with making human exceptions to those. It is a matter of balance. That is what our legislation is about, and I have to say that the balance of the argument goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and those who have supported this important set of amendments—people from all parties in the other place—and that is why I shall find myself in the Lobby in favour of the series of amendments passed from another place.

Mr. O'Brien: A couple of points should be placed on record on the important subject of the poll tax and how it applies to the disabled. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) raised a number of issues which were not new. They were raised by Labour Members in Committee. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not read the Official Report or taken note of what was said in Committee and I must put it on record that the points that we raised were turned down by his colleagues in Committee.
I also want to make it clear to the Secretary of State that, when the Labour party was in office, it increased expenditure on the disabled over five years by over 300 per cent. One of the issues with which we dealt was the mobility allowance, which is very much appreciated by people. The Labour Government therefore made considerable provision for expenditure on the disabled.
We also hope that the Minister will clarify the issue of the uprating of the compensation element year on year because no provision has been made for the uprating of the element and it will soon lose value in relation to the poll tax if there is no assurance that uprating will take place each year.
I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of some of the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the important issue of the application of the poll tax to disabled people. I hope that we shall uphold the decision of the House of Lords on this important issue.

Mr. Ridley: I shall first answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) about the compensation element. All DHSS benefits, of which that is one, are uprated annually in the annual social security review according to the figures at that time.
Typically, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) scored a pretty good own goal at the beginning of our debate. He quoted Lord Allen and went on to say that it was difficult to see how many authorities in the inner city would ever be anything but above the average. Let me draw his attention to the fact that, in Birmingham, on this year's figures, the charge is £218, whereas the average is £246. I congratulate that inner city area of Birmingham.

Mr. Rooker: What about the surcharge?

Mr. Ridley: Throughout the debate, we have referred to figures without including the safety net. The hon. Gentleman will not get away with that.
That is an inner-city area where the disabled benefit from what we have proposed, as have other people who will be on rebates because they have a council that performs effectively at a low community charge rate. If


councils want to help the less well-off, whether or not they are disabled, they will have it in their own means to have a below-average community charge, like the inner-city area of Birmingham.

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose——

Mr. Wigley: That is not the fault of disabled people.

Mr. Ridley: I pay tribute to that. The way that the Opposition have suggested that it is an accident that there are high community charges in some places and not in others is absolutely monstrous.

Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State does not give a damn for disabled people.

Mr. Ridley: If the Opposition want to have low community charges for people on low means, they have the solution in their own hands.

Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State is using disabled people.

Mr. Ridley: Let me deal with the crux of the argument.

Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) got the point right. He pointed out that the highest amount in Camden by which anybody could fall short on their 20 per cent. payment was £1·30 a week or £83 a year, not the £100 that has been quoted.

Mr. Wigley: That is a lot of money to disabled people. Has the Secretary of State ever tried living on that sort of money?

Mr. Ridley: That figure is the highest of all councils in this country. I challenge Camden council to reduce its figure. It is up to Camden to do that.
I should like to make it quite clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) has said, the amount that the Government have added to the average weekly income of disabled people in the social security review is £4·50 per week, which in many cases leaves disabled people £80 per week better off than their able-bodied counterparts——

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose——

Mr. Ridley: The way to help disabled people is the way that the Government have chosen over the years—to give disabled people more disposable income of their own——

Mr. David Winnick: rose——

Mr. Wigley: rose——

Mr. Ridley: That is the right way to do it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign".]—and Opposition Members know it.

It being half-past Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 216.

Division No. 428]
[7.30 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Amery, Rt Hon Julian


Alexander, Richard
Amos, Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arbuthnot, James





Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Ashby, David
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert
Fishburn, John Dudley


Atkinson, David
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Batiste, Spencer
Franks, Cecil


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fry, Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gale, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gardiner, George


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gill, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gorst, John


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gow, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bright, Graham
Grist, Ian


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Ground, Patrick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hanley, Jeremy


Buck, Sir Antony
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Alan


Butcher, John
Hayes, Jerry


Butler, Chris
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Cash, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hill, James


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hind, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chope, Christopher
Holt, Richard


Churchill, Mr
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howard, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Irving, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jack, Michael


Curry, David
Jackson, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Janman, Tim


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kilfedder, James


Dunn, Bob
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Knowles, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Farr, Sir John
Lang, Ian


Favell, Tony
Latham, Michael






Lawrence, Ivan
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Ryder, Richard


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lightbown, David
Scott, Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrindle, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Sims, Roger


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maclean, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Malins, Humfrey
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stevens, Lewis


Maples, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stokes, Sir John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sumberg, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Summerson, Hugo


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mellor, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Miller, Sir Hal
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mills, Iain
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thorne, Neil


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thornton, Malcolm


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moss, Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tredinnick, David


Mudd, David
Trippier, David


Neale, Gerrard
Trotter, Neville


Nelson, Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neubert, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Viggers, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Ward, John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Irvine
Warren, Kenneth


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Watts, John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whitney, Ray


Portillo, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Price, Sir David
Wilkinson, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wilshire, David


Redwood, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas


Riddick, Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Woodcock, Mike


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Roe, Mrs Marion



Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rost, Peter
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Rowe, Andrew





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Adley, Robert


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Allen, Graham





Alton, David
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Anderson, Donald
George, Bruce


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Armstrong, Hilary
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Gould, Bryan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Graham, Thomas


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Barron, Kevin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Battle, John
Grocott, Bruce


Beckett, Margaret
Hannam, John


Beggs, Roy
Hardy, Peter


Bell, Stuart
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Benyon, W.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bermingham, Gerald
Henderson, Doug


Bidwell, Sydney
Hinchliffe, David


Blair, Tony
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boateng, Paul
Home Robertson, John


Boyes, Roland
Hood, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Buckley, George J.
Illsley, Eric


Caborn, Richard
Janner, Greville


Callaghan, Jim
John, Brynmor


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Canavan, Dennis
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cartwright, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lambie, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lamond, James


Clay, Bob
Leighton, Ron


Clelland, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cohen, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Coleman, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Livingstone, Ken


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Cousins, Jim
McAllion, John


Cox, Tom
McAvoy, Thomas


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Cummings, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKelvey, William


Cunningham, Dr John
McLeish, Henry


Dalyell, Tam
McNamara, Kevin


Darling, Alistair
McTaggart, Bob


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McWilliam, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Maginnis, Ken


Dewar, Donald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dixon, Don
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Doran, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Douglas, Dick
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Martlew, Eric


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Eastham, Ken
Meacher, Michael


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meale, Alan


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michael, Alun


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fisher, Mark
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Flannery, Martin
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Flynn, Paul
Morley, Elliott


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Foulkes, George
Murphy, Paul


Fraser, John
Nellist, Dave


Fyfe, Maria
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galbraith, Sam
O'Brien, William


Galloway, George
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Parry, Robert






Patchett, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Pike, Peter L.
Squire, Robin


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prescott, John
Strang, Gavin


Primarolo, Dawn
Straw, Jack


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Radice, Giles
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Redmond, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Vaz, Keith


Reid, Dr John
Wall, Pat


Richardson, Jo
Walley, Joan


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robertson, George
Wareing, Robert N.


Robinson, Geoffrey
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rogers, Allan
Wigley, Dafydd


Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Worthington, Tony


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wray, Jimmy


Short, Clare
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Adam Ingram.


Soley, Clive

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment 171 accordingly disagreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 24 and 26:—

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 177.

Division No. 429]
[7.46 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Burt, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butler, Chris


Amos, Alan
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carrington, Matthew


Atkins, Robert
Cash, William


Atkinson, David
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Churchill, Mr


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bendall, Vivian
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Colvin, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Conway, Derek


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cope, Rt Hon John


Body, Sir Richard
Couchman, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Curry, David


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Day, Stephen


Bowis, John
Devlin, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dicks, Terry


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dorrell, Stephen


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Durant, Tony


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Emery, Sir Peter


Browne, John (Winchester)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Evennett, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas





Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Farr, Sir John
Lightbown, David


Favell, Tony
Lilley, Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Fishburn, John Dudley
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forman, Nigel
McKelvey, William


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Franks, Cecil
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Freeman, Roger
Madel, David


French, Douglas
Major, Rt Hon John


Fry, Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, George
Maples, John


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marlow, Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gow, Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Miller, Sir Hal


Gregory, Conal
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hannam,John
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Hawkins, Christopher
Neale, Gerrard


Hayes, Jerry
Nelson, Anthony


Hayward, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hill, James
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hind, Kenneth
Page, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Paice, James


Holt, Richard
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Howard, Michael
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Price, Sir David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rhodes James, Robert


Irving, Charles
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Janman, Tim
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rost, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowe, Andrew


Key, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Kilfedder, James
Sackville, Hon Tom


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Knowles, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Ian
Shersby, Michael


Latham, Michael
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lee, John (Pendle)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)






Soames, Hon Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


Speed, Keith
Tredinnick, David


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Trotter, Neville


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Stanbrook, Ivor
Viggers, Peter


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Stern, Michael
Wallace, James


Stevens, Lewis
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Ward, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Warren, Kenneth


Stokes, Sir John
Watts, John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, John


Summerson, Hugo
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wilshire, David


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thorne, Neil
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thornton, Malcolm



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Duffy, A. E. P.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Allen, Graham
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Anderson, Donald
Eastham, Ken


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fatchett, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Flannery, Martin


Battle, John
Flynn, Paul


Beckett, Margaret
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Beggs, Roy
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bell, Stuart
Foulkes, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Fyfe, Maria


Bidwell, Sydney
Galbraith, Sam


Blair, Tony
Galloway, George


Boateng, Paul
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Boyes, Roland
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bradley, Keith
George, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Graham, Thomas


Buckley, George J.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Callaghan, Jim
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Canavan, Dennis
Haynes, Frank


Cartwright, John
Henderson, Doug


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clay, Bob
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Ingram, Adam


Cummings, John
John, Brynmor


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Darling, Alistair
Lambie, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamond, James


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Leighton, Ron


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dixon, Don
Lewis, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Doran, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Douglas, Dick
Lofthouse, Geoffrey





Loyden, Eddie
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


McAllion, John
Reid, Dr John


McAvoy, Thomas
Richardson, Jo


McCartney, Ian
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


McLeish, Henry
Rogers, Allan


McNamara, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


McWilliam, John
Ruddock, Joan


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Maginnis, Ken
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Short, Clare


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Strang, Gavin


Michael, Alun
Straw, Jack


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Turner, Dennis


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Vaz, Keith


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wall, Pat


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Walley, Joan


Morley, Elliott
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wareing, Robert N.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Nellist, Dave
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wilson, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Patchett, Terry
Worthington, Tony


Pike, Peter L.
Wray, Jimmy


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prescott, John



Primarolo, Dawn
Tellers for the Noes:


Radice, Giles
Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. William McKelvey.


Redmond, Martin

Question agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 24 and 26 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Mr. Alistair Burt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It should be noted that the Government offered a concession on the last group of amendments on which the House was forced to vote. Have we not just been through an enormous waste of time——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I have taken the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a debating point, not a point of order for the Chair.

Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 218 to 233:—

The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 157.

Division No. 430]
[7.57 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alexander, Richard
Body, Sir Richard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amos, Alan
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Atkins, Robert
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Atkinson, David
Bowis, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Baldry, Tony
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Batiste, Spencer
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Bellingham, Henry
Brazier, Julian


Bendall, Vivian
Bright, Graham


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Browne, John (Winchester)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)






Burt, Alistair
Hind, Kenneth


Butcher, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butler, Chris
Holt, Richard


Butterfill, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howard, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cash, William
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Chope, Christopher
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Churchill, Mr
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Irving, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jack, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Conway, Derek
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Key, Robert


Curry, David
Kilfedder, James


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knowles, Michael


Dover, Den
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dunn, Bob
Lang, Ian


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lilley, Peter


Fallon, Michael
Lord, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Favell, Tony
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McCrindle, Robert


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McKelvey, William


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maclean, David


Forman, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Madel, David


Franks, Cecil
Major, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Fry, Peter
Maples, John


Gale, Roger
Marland, Paul


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marlow, Tony


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maude, Hon Francis


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mellor, David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Miller, Sir Hal


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gregory, Conal
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moate, Roger


Grist, Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, John
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mudd, David


Harris, David
Neale, Gerrard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Christopher
Neubert, Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayward, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Page, Richard


Hill, James
Paice, James





Patnick, Irvine
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Stokes, Sir John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Portillo, Michael
Sumberg, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Summerson, Hugo


Price, Sir David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Redwood, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rhodes James, Robert
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thorne, Neil


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thornton, Malcolm


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tracey, Richard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tredinnick, David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Trippier, David


Rost, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walden, George


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Waller, Gary


Sayeed, Jonathan
Ward, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Sims, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wilshire, David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Speed, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stanley, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown and


Stevens, Lewis
Mr. Richard Ryder.


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cummings, John


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tam


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Darling, Alistair


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dobson, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Battle, John
Douglas, Dick


Beckett, Margaret
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Beggs, Roy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fatchett, Derek


Blair, Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boateng, Paul
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bradley, Keith
Fisher, Mark


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Buckley, George J.
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Caborn, Richard
Foulkes, George


Callaghan, Jim
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce


Cartwright, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clay, Bob
Graham, Thomas


Cohen, Harry
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Grocott, Bruce


Corbett, Robin
Hardy, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cousins, Jim
Haynes, Frank


Cox, Tom
Hinchliffe, David


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)






Home Robertson, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Parry, Robert


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Prescott, John


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Dawn


Ingram, Adam
Redmond, Martin


John, Brynmor
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Richardson, Jo


Kennedy, Charles
Rogers, Allan


Lamond, James
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leighton, Ron
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry
Ruddock, Joan


Litherland, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Loyden, Eddie
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McKelvey, William
Steinberg, Gerry


McLeish, Henry
Strang, Gavin


McNamara, Kevin
Straw, Jack


McWilliam, John
Turner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Vaz, Keith


Maginnis, Ken
Wall, Pat


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Walley, Joan


Marek, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wareing, Robert N.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Maxton, John
Wilson, Brian


Meale, Alan
Winnick, David


Michael, Alun
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Worthington, Tony


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mullin, Chris
Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mr. George Galloway.


Murphy, Paul



Nellist, Dave

Question agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 218 to 233 agreed to.

SCHEDULE 2

COMMUNITY CHARGES: ADMINISTRATION

Lords amendment: No. 234, in page 87, line 51, at end insert—

"13A.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may include provision that no duty of confidentiality shall prevent the Secretary of State from disclosing relevant information to a registration officer for a charging authority.

(2) Information is relevant information if—
(a) it was obtained by the Secretary of State in exercising his functions 1986 c. 50, under the Social Security Act 1986,
(b) the Secretary of State believes it would be useful to the registration officer in exercising his functions under this Parliament, and
(c) it falls within a prescribed description."

Read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a) and Lords amendments Nos. 235 to 237, 246, 249, 253 to 255, 257, 259, 260, 261 and 265.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), at end insert—
'(3) Where the relevant information is personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1984, any interpretation of the meaning of the first data protection principle, or any restriction in the exercising of the powers of the data protection registrar in relation to any of the data protection

principles shall not apply, and any disclosure of personal data shall not be subject to the non-disclosure provisions of the Act.'.
It would be helpful perhaps to explain what Lords amendment No. 234 is about. It means that
no duty of confidentiality shall prevent the Secretary of State from disclosing relevant information to a registration officer
for the collection of the poll tax. Then it describes the relevant information. If it is obtained by the Secretary of State under the Social Security Act 1986 for social security purposes it can be passed to the poll tax registrar. If the Secretary of State believes that such information would be useful for the collection of the poll tax, or even if it falls within the prescribed description and was previously not allowed to be passed on, the Secretary of State can do so. That means that he can pass that information to the poll tax registrar.
The amendment gives the Secretary of State remarkable powers that are not just excessive but almost dictatorial in nature. My amendment (a) seeks to correct the situation and to bring some sense to the measure. If it is not changed, Lords amendment No. 234 would dramatically compromise three of the eight data protection principles. That compromise would be fundamental and the other principles would also be adversely affected. The first principle to be compromised is the principle that personal data shall be obtained and processed fairly and lawfully. As a guide to interpreting this principle, the data protection registrar was advised that data users should, first, explain to the person why the information was required; secondly, ensure that people are not misled about why the information is required; and, thirdly, explain why the information would be used or disclosed. Those recommendations are in the data protection registrar's guideline No. 4.
The problem is that in the public sector most personal data are deemed to be collected fairly and are often required to be collected according to some statute or other. That is often true of personal data collected by the Secretary of State for the purposes of carrying out his statutory functions. The Secretary of State need not follow the registrar's advice that I have mentioned and need not explain to a person why information is required. The worst part is that it is quite lawful for him to mislead people about why the information is required, used or disclosed. It is unacceptable for such a state of affairs to be enshrined in statute.
The possibility of duping people should never be an acceptable means of administration and it could have damaging consequences. For example, people might be afraid to come into contact with officialdom in any way, shape or form and, for that reason, might not get the rights to which they are entitled. Secondly, it could well lead to the build-up of hatred against an untrusted and untrustworthy administration. Those are the dangerous consequences of allowing people to be duped. In any case it is against the whole philosophy of the Data Protection Act 1984, which aims at fair treatment and protection for people against the misuse of information held about them. It is wrong that the Secretary of State should be able to breach that first data protection principle.
8.15 pm
The third data protection principle is seriously compromised. For example, section 34(5)(a) of the Data Protection Act describes the non-disclosure condition whereby personal data are disclosed by or under any


enactment. Section 26(3) of the Data Protection Act says that such a disclosure is not subject to the enforcement powers of the registrar. The registrar has such powers for any other sort of disclosure but not in this respect.
The section also says:
by reference to any data protection principle inconsistent with the disclosure in question.
The key word in that part of the Act is "any," because it means that all eight of the data protection principles are at risk. These non-disclosure exemptions need not be registered with the data protection registrar, so there is a reduced chance of his ever finding out about them. That is a complex aspect of the matter. In short, it means that the registrar is utterly powerless to prevent abuse and in many cases he will be ignorant of the myriad disclosures of personal data that will be required to produce the poll tax registers. The data protection registrar's important role as a quasi-ombudsman and investigator of data abuse is seriously undermined in respect of information obtained for collecting the poll tax under this Lords amendment.
The final data protection principle to be abused is the fourth one—that personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which the data are used.
The principle allows the data protection registrar to investigate the reason for an item of personal data being held. That is not the case for the poll tax register and the Secretary of State's powers. The Bill is littered with powers enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations about the personal data to be kept. It is the Secretary of State who will decide the items of data to be kept. Those could very well be excessive and not relevant to the purpose for which the personal data are held. That is intolerable. It drives a coach and horses through the principles underlying the Data Protection Act.
Lords amendment No. 234 provides that information is relevant information which can be disclosed for poll tax purposes even
if … it falls within a prescribed description.
That is information that would otherwise not be allowed to be disclosed under the terms of the Data Protection Act. The amendment would give the Secretary of State carte blanche to decide what is to be prescribed and what is not. It also empowers him to breach the duty of confidentiality under which the information might originally have been obtained.
No personal information is sacred to the Secretary of State if he wants to pass it on to the poll tax registrar, and that includes information which the Data Protection Act says shall be secret. It must be wrong for the Government to seek to enact such a blanket power. It is worth reiterating the problems about the amendment. The data protection registrar cannot exercise any of his enforcement powers in relation to disclosures by the Secretary of State. The disclosure made by the Secretary of State may not appear on the registration and is therefore hidden from the registrar and the public.
According to the clause, personal data are always deemed to be obtained fairly by the Secretary of State, however unscrupulous or immoral the means used to obtain such data. That applies even if the data subject is blatantly misled about why information on him is being collected. The registrar cannot serve an enforcement notice about the obtaining of personal data by the Secretary of State in the way that he can do for many items of information collected by other data users. He cannot act if

the items of data to be collected by the Secretary of State for poll tax purposes are excessive or not relevant. He cannot prevent gross breaches of confidentiality by the Secretary of State.
As a result of the amendment the Government will be given an appalling list of powers. My amendment to amendment No. 234 solves all the problems, and the registrar will have his powers restored to safeguard an individual's privacy. My amendment ties up the relevant information with the Data Protection Act 1984, which the Government are trying to separate from the poll tax legislation. The relevant information is
personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1984".
My amendment provides that
any interpretation of the meaning of the first data protection principle, or any restriction in the excercising of the powers of the data protection registrar in relation to any of the data protection principles shall not apply".
That would restore the powers of the registrar so that he could act if there were abuses, especially in relation to the first and fourth data protection principles. My amendment also states that
any disclosure of personal data shall not be subject to the non-disclosure provisions of the Act.
That restores the powers of the third data protection principle.
In their haste to impose the poll tax, the Government are trampling on the privacy and data protection rights that are essential for the protection of individuals. Lords amendment No. 234 will create a secret service state, which has no bounds or restrictions. Data on everyone, however confidential or personal, are permitted if the Secretary of State wants that information. Such information may be wildly excessive for the purposes of poll tax collection. It is a draconian and expensive tax and the Government are giving themselves draconian powers to impose it. My amendment will restore sanity to this matter.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): In the past half-hour we have seen the extent to which the debate on the Lords amendments has been reduced to a farce by the Opposition. The start of this debate was delayed by half an hour by two completely pointless Divisions. They are certainly pointless if the Opposition are serious about needing time to debate the issues. The first Division was on a concession that was granted pursuant to an undertaking given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government, and implemented in another place. The second Division was on nothing more than a drafting amendment. Now the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 234 and his amendment is obscure and defective. It does not even provide what the hon. Gentleman intends.
Effectively, the hon. Gentleman's amendment would disapply the first data protection principle of the data protection act 1984 by providing that
any interpretation of the meaning of the first data protection principle"—
whatever that may mean—should not apply. The amendment would also disapply any restriction of the powers of the Data Protection Registrar, although it is not at all clear what those restrictions might be. It would also disapply the principle enshrined in the Data Protection Act 1984 that data must be fairly and lawfully disclosed. At best, the amendment is confused, and it is difficult to comment on it in detail. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that disclosures of community charge


information for the purposes of the community charge will have to conform to the provisions of the Data Protection Act. That Act provides all the protection that is necessary in such cases and there is no need for an amendment of this nature.
The first data protection principle will not be compromised, because individuals whose details are passed to the registration officer will always be told by the Department of Health and Social Security that the disclosure is taking place. The hon. Member for Leyton has got that wrong.
The third data protection principle will not be compromised. It is perfectly true that the Data Protection Act disapplies the third principle in certain circumstances, but that is a provision of that Act—it does not flow from anything in the Bill. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the DHSS will register the disclosures with the data protection Registrar. Nothing in the provision restricts the powers of the data protection registrar, and information transferred will have to be up to date, relevant and not excessive. The hon. Gentleman has got it all completely wrong.
On Report my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government announced that the Government intended to amend the Bill to allow for two things: the disclosure of information to community charge registration officers by DHSS local offices, and direct deduction from income support as a remedy where an income support recipient defaults on his community charge payments.
People receiving income support will have included in their benefit an element reflecting the fact that they will have to pay 20 per cent. of their community charge. Surely it is perfectly reasonable to ensure that they should actually register for the charge. Amendment No. 234 accordingly provides that no duty of confidentiality shall prevent the Secretary of State from passing information to the community charge registration officers.
We intend to make regulations that will prescribe the information that local offices may pass on. It will be restricted to the names and addresses of income support claimants. People who are eligible for income support are automatically entitled to an 80 per cent. rebate of their community charge. Claimants will therefore be invited to complete a rebate application form. If they do so, and if their claim for income support is allowed, the DHSS local office will send the form to the local authority, which will arrange for their rebate to be paid. In most cases this will be done through a reduction in the claimants' community charge bills.

Mr. William McKelvey: How much will that additional exercise cost?

Mr. Chope: It will not cost anything like as much as it would if the money that was being paid to those in receipt of income support did not end up in the coffers of the local authorities, thus enabling them to provide services. If, however, a claimant does not wish to apply for a rebate, the DHSS local office will pass his or her name and address to the CCRO to enable him to check his register. That is a sensible measure designed to provide an extra source of

information to CCROs in carrying out their statutory functions and ensuring that benefit paid for a particular purpose is actually used for that purpose.
The Lords amendment also provides that people on income support who default on their payments and get into arrears with their community charge may have sums deducted direct from their income support and paid to the local authority. That again is a sensible measure, which parallels the provision for the attachment of earnings of people who are in work. Without that provision there would be no alternative to distress or imprisonment, which would put people on income support at a disadvantage compared with those in work—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on.''] It would. Because we are a sympathetic Government, we have provided that a local authority that has obtained a liability order may apply to have deductions made from income support and may ask the debtor to provide information about his income. Regulations will set out the circumstances and manner in which direct payments may be made, and will set a limit on the amount that may be deducted.
I do not believe that either of the two measures discriminates at all unfairly against people who are receiving income support. Everyone has a duty to register. Income support is a passport to a maximum rebate and will contain an element to reflect the remaining 20 per cent contribution. It is therefore right to seek to ensure that those receiving it are properly registered. As for direct deductions, those merely parallel the existing provisions for attachment of earnings and provide a way in which income support recipients who get into arrears may remedy the situation without the need for distress.
In case hon. Members think that there is something novel about that, let me remind the House of some of the other purposes for which deductions may be made from income support. They include housing arrears and current costs, miscellaneous accommodation costs, service charges for fuel and rent, gas arrears and current consumption, electricity arrears and current consumption, water arrears and current consumption, recovery of over-payment of benefit, including housing benefit and social fund loan repayments. All those categories are purposes for which deductions can be made directly from income support.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: The difference between the poll tax and the other charges that the Minister has listed is that the recipient of income support must give consent for deductions to be made for the purposes of electricity arrears, rent arrears and so on. However, the community charge arrears will be deducted compulsorily from income support. It will mean that food will be taken out of people's mouths because the Social Security Ministers have been too mean to give them the full benefit in the first place.

Mr. Chope: The hon. Lady is talking nonsense. We are talking about money that has been paid by taxpayers to recipients of income support. The hon. Lady seems to be suggesting that, although that money has been paid specifically to enable people to pay their community charge, they should have the freedom to spend it on whatever they like. We cannot accept that proposition.
I hope that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton will be rejected and that the House will agree with these sensible Lords amendments.

Mr. Rooker: That was another disgraceful performance by the Minister. He has learnt nothing since Committee and Report stages while trying to defend the indefensible.
Amendment No. 234 is a classic example of what has been happening. Earlier today we were told, "This is what was discussed earlier and it is only what you asked for." First, we did not ask for amendment No. 234, and, secondly, the transfer of information from the DHSS to poll tax officers was not discussed in Committee. It was hinted at in the media and referred to on Report. We were told that applicants for income support would be given a rebate application form and that if they did not submit it, someone would chase them up. That sounds administratively convenient for the civil servants involved, but that is not what is stated in the amendment. It provides that all information collected by the Secretary of State under the Social Security Act 1986 can be passed to poll tax registration officers. Why has it been drawn so wide?

Mr. David Harris: Why not?

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman may not understand that one of the great prerequisites about information on the poll tax was that all national sources of information would not be available to poll tax registration officers; all local sources of information would be available. In other words, no income tax records, no health authority records, and no gas or electricity records would be available, but all local authority information of births, marriages, deaths, schools, housing, roads and rebates—the whole gamut—would fit the bill. All of a sudden, all DHSS information is to be available to poll tax officers, and we have not had a satisfactory explanation why.

Mr. Harris: If the DHSS makes that money available for a specific purpose surely it has every right, and indeed a duty, to pass that information on to poll tax officers. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Rooker: Why does that not happen today?

Mr. Harris: Perhaps it should.

Mr. Rooker: The more this Bill is debated, the more we learn about what is in the minds of Conservative Members of Parliament.

Mr. Harris: rose——

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman voted for the guillotine and we did not, and I have already done him the courtesy of giving way once.
Amendment No. 234 is drawn much wider than was hinted at previously. We never had any amendments along these lines, so we could not amend the proposal. We had no inkling of this until the Bill went to the Lords. The debate there was on 30 June, so only then was the Government's plan known. We have not had a satisfactory explanation.
It is interesting that recipients of social security benefit and income support are not automatically checked for attendance allowance and mobility allowance. My hon. Friends and I constantly find people, whom we are seeing in another connection, who have been dealing with the DHSS, social workers and health visitors yet who are not paid mobility or attendance allowance when they should be. Nobody has ever bothered to check. Why is there no amendment to deal with people who are not receiving

sufficient money from the DHSS? There is nothing along those lines. This provision is one-sided, which is why we object so much to it.
I have another point to raise with the Minister about the DHSS and the transfer of information. The DHSS is responsible for running the census, and its Ministers are responsible for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Every citizen now knows that DHSS information will go to poll tax officers, and people will be worried. I alluded to this on Second Reading. The Bill threatens the accuracy of the census, and there are many reasons why we need a census to be accurate—for example, locating schools in the right places. People will co-operate with the census only if they are absolutely certain that the information is locked into it. The DHSS runs the census and tonight it will receive new powers under amendment No. 234 to disclose information to poll tax officers.
Before the Minister or any Conservative Member jumps up and says, "That is all covered by the Official Secrets Act," I must say that I do not believe them. I do not trust the Government any longer; indeed, I do not think that I ever did. I do not trust them to conduct public administration fairly and above board.
I have a constituency interest in this. In April 1989, when the poll tax register for England will start to be assembled two years ahead of the census, a test will be carried out on 85,000 households, 23,000 of which are in my constituency in Birmingham and in four wards in the constituency of Birmingham, Small Heath. It is voluntary, and I shall advise my constituents to have nothing whatever to do with it. At the same time as census officers will be knocking on their doors, poll tax officers will also be at their doors. They will be falling over each other in my inner-city wards, where single people will have to pay more in poll tax than they now pay in rates.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is making a series of excellent points. Is he aware that under amendment No. 234 poll tax officers who knock on the doors of his constituents can dupe those constituents and claim to be census officers? They could choose to do that under these powers.

Mr. Rooker: I am coming to that. It would save a lot of public money for one person to do both jobs. That is common sense. I shall advise my constituents not to trust the Government over the voluntary census in April 1989. They cannot be trusted with that information. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) takes the same view.
Ministers cannot say that they have not been warned about the census being affected. We want it to be accurate, but British people will not respond to the census in 1991 in the full-hearted way that they normally do because of the operation of the poll tax. They simply will not trust the Government for this intrusion into their privacy. If the Government wish to shift ministerial responsibility for the operation of the census to another Department, that is for them. It may be a good idea because the letter dated 19 July sent by the Department to the chief executive of Birmingham was addressed to a person who ceased to be the chief executive back in March.
The Minister claimed that amendment No. 249 comes as no great surprise to us, and that we already knew about it. We did know about it, because we found out about amendment No. 249 in a newspaper report. When we were


discussing attachment of earnings and other poll tax matters in Committee, the guillotine was about to fall. It is not true, as the Minister of State said, that we had dealt with the poll tax in Committee. We had dealt only with a substantial part of the clauses relating to the poll tax in the early part of the Bill. If I remember rightly, just as we were discussing the rebate system, the guillotine came down. There were other later clauses relating to the poll tax.
I will plead guilty, and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) will share the guilt, if guilt there be, but we did not ask about attachment of benefit, partly because of the constraint of time and partly because it never crossed our minds. However, Ministers were unhappy about the matter and told their friends in the Press Gallery that attachment of benefit was talked about in a Cabinet Sub-Committee. The story then appeared in The Independent, which is where we found out about it. It was never discussed in Committee. No Minister ever proposed it and it was not in the Bill.
That happened in February, but the Government could not even get the amendments ready for Report in April, so that the House could discuss the matter at length and we could try to amend the Government's proposals. Tabling amendments tonight would have been a complete waste of time, as the debate will be for only an hour and a half. We would not waste the time of the House, the Clerks, Hansard or the printers of the Order Paper. This debate on amendment No. 249 is the first opportunity that the House of Commons has had to discuss the attachment of benefit to poor people—those who already have the so-called 20 per cent. in the benefit, which we learned from an earlier debate will probably be half the population. Constituents of all hon. Members will be affected.
This measure is ludicrous because the very poorest people in the country, by definition, will be on income support. There are no poorer people in the country than those on income support—formerly supplementary benefit. They have been given this little extra in benefit—which we think will be eroded, but that is a matter for another time—to pay their poll tax. However, they cannot quite make that payment, because they have not yet had the full 20 per cent. because they live in an area with a poll tax slightly above average. Perhaps they have had a few extra bills for gas, for electricity or because their iron has broken. They do not receive money to replace capital goods. However, they choose to buy a new iron instead of paying the 20 per cent. of the poll tax.
The Minister intends to deduct from the income support—plus any fine or penalty—the money that the Government have already put in in the first place. There is a natural solution, and one that would save a lot of trouble. If the 20 per cent. is put into the benefit and is taken out before the people get their hands on it, because they may want to spend it on some emergency and transfer is straight to the local authority, would it not make more sense to stop people using the money as a piggy bank on the mantelpiece when it is not poll tax day but crisis day?
The Minister's argument will be accountability. Because people have not paid the pennies with their own hands, they will not understand about voting at local elections. That is ludicrous, as is the Minister's defence of this proposal. He is a member of the legal profession and must know about the courts of this country. Do we still

have free courts? I cannot believe that the magistrates and the courts will stand any nonsense. The proposal is impractical. It is nasty and mean. I cannot understand for the life of me why the Minister is prepared to defend it. He is the only Minister who has had to defend it, as it is the first time it has been debated in the House. Where are the Secretary of State and the Minister of State? The attachment of benefit is a disgrace.
8.45 pm
I invite the Minister in the short time available to put up a better and a more honest case than he was able to put earlier. I do not accuse him of personal dishonesty, but I invite him to put up a more honest and open case to explain to my hon. Friends and the millions of people outside why this system is necessary, especially as it has not been deemed necessary under domestic rating. The treasurers I have spoken to think that the domestic rating system is good administration and they never dreamed that they would have to have recourse to this kind of decision to collect the rates. If a system has been good enough for the rates, why cannot it not be good enough for the poll tax? There must be a simple answer somewhere.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I have deliberately chosen to speak on this group of amendments, because it includes two important principles that I feel should be rejected. We are all aware that the Government have allowed insufficient time to debate the important changes made in the other place. We have been forced to skip over many today. There has not been time to put many of them to the vote. The two important principles, included in the amendments against which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) spoke, are very different, compared with the time when they were dealt with in Committee.
Attachment of benefit was not debated in Committee at all. Although the Secretary of State and the Minister of State referred to it on Report, we were precluded from debating it because we had no amendment before us. This is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss the principle involved in amendment No. 249. During the debate that we had on attachment of earnings and other matters, I put one question to the Minister of State. I said that we were opposed to the principle, and asked what, if the Government were forcing us along this line,
will be the position if the attachment of benefit to pay the poll tax reduces that person's level of income, through benefit or income support, below what the statute decrees that person needs for his or her requirements?"—[Official Report, 20 April 1988: Vol. 131, c. 876.]
That is another issue that the Minister needs to explain. Amendment No. 249, in subsection (2)(b), says:
which may include provision to secure that amounts payable to the debtor by way of income support do not fall below prescribed figures".
I stress that it uses the word "may". It does not say "it must not". Even if we are forced to accept the principle, to which we are completely opposed, if the amendment is passed, in some cases it will be possible for magistrates to reduce a person's income—which may affect the family—to a level below that prescribed by statute as being the absolute minimum for his or her requirements. We all know that many people live in poverty and degradation. In relative terms, a few pence or a pound a week are of crucial importance to them. The Government cannot callously dismiss them, as they have done on other occasions.
The matter is extremely important. Opposition Members believe that the principle behind the amendment is completely wrong. The benefit should be paid. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) said that there was a considerable difference between the Minister's points about electricity and gas. That is an essential point for people who choose to have their benefit deducted to pay gas and electricity bills. That option should be available if people believe that it helps their money management and budget control, while recognising the difficulties in which they live. That must be a personal choice.
The amendment does not involve any choice on the part of the people involved. They will be compelled to go along a certain line if a magistrate so determines. That is appalling and should be strongly opposed. Conservative Members—I note that they are not in evidence here to debate the matter—should recognise the importance of the principle involved.
We all know that the Government introduced the amendment in the Lords and introduced the attachment of earnings amendment on Report because the tax is unpopular throughout the country as it fails to take account of ability to pay. There will be many court cases. Many people will choose to go to prison rather than pay. To try to prevent the legal and prison systems being clogged up, the Government introduced the attachment of earnings. and attachment of benefit provisions. The Government know that people will not accept that the poll tax system is fair. It shifts the method of support of local government from ability to pay. The people who can afford to pay now pay more. Whatever anomalies and faults may exist in the present system, it is certainly fairer than a system that will make the poorest people pay an ever increasing share of local government expenditure.
Amendment No. 234 deals with the passing of DHSS information to community charge poll tax officers—call them what one will. It is an important issue. Despite what the Minister said, it is not true to say that the Government have stated that his was the direction in which they intended to go all along. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr is absolutely right. Time and again in Committee and on Report the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State emphasised that, although information will be available from other local government sources, whether it be from housing departments, grants departments, libraries and so on—we have many criticisms of such aspects, but we are not debating them today—information will not be available from Government Departments such as the Inland Revenue and the DHSS. Of course, they said what will happen when a person asks for a particular benefit.
Amendment No. 234 is quite different. The Department will give information to the local authority. I have no doubt that, when they consider it necessary, the Government will change the legislation. They may as well open the door and say that information obtained may be from everywhere. As several of my hon. Friends have said on many occasions, to make the system work the Government will have to accept the inevitability of identity cards or some other form of national registration. A Library research note, which is available to all hon. Members, states:
This amendment was promised during the Commons proceedings.
I do not believe that that is strictly correct. It goes on:

It will allow regulations to be made which would permit the Social Services Secretary to disclose prescribed information to registration officers. The Minister promised that the information would be restricted to the names and addresses only of those people in receipt of income support who have not applied for a community charge rebate.
That is a dangerous precedent. We all know that once the first foot is in the door of the DHSS, other information will be available. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr referred to the census. If we operate a fair system, there will be a willingness to co-operate. The Government know that this system is not fair, that there will be difficulties in getting people to register, and that they will have to take increasingly draconian powers to ensure that information is given to community charge registration officers if they are to be able to collect the poll tax.
The amendments are completely wrong. They should be defeated because they are not acceptable. As I have said, I hope that some Conservative Members will be prepared to reject the amendments, because they move along a dangerous line. Conservative Members should carefully consider the implications of the amendments before they decide to go into the Division Lobby with the Government.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Whenever we have debated civil liberties and the poll tax, the Government have repeatedly assured us that information will not be passed from one body to another without restriction, and, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, that national information will not be passed to local bodies. The amendment seems to give the Secretary of State just such carte blanche to pass information to local authorities. It states:
no duty of confidentiality shall prevent the Secretary of State from disclosing relevant information".
If personal social security information is given to officials in good faith, should it not remain confidential? Does not the amendment make any reference to confidentiality by DHSS officers completely worthless? It may be that the personal information involved is sensitive—for example, information regarding personal relationships—but of no interest in terms of poll tax liabilities. Should not claimants be guaranteed confidentiality? Clause 13A would prohibit such a guarantee. We have tabled an amendment precisely to take out the clause.
If an hon. Member on the Labour Front Bench could get me a glass of water, it would be helpful. Meanwhile, I am sure that I shall survive.
The main Opposition party has many purposes, and one of them is to give glasses of water to those hon. Members who are too far away from the Table to do so for themselves.

Mr. McKelvey: The hon. Gentleman would not get a glass of water from that bunch of gangsters over there.

Mr. Taylor: Water will be privatised as well and there will be a tax on it soon, so we had better take the opportunity while we have it.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has tabled a constructive amendment. The Minister has said that there are drafting problems, and I would not like to say that he is wrong. However, the intention behind the amendment is good, and the Government should accept the spirit behind it.
Although confidentiality is important, the essential issue arises in Lords amendment No. 249. The


Government's intention to introduce a provision for attachment of benefit was leaked in the press on 26 February, by which time the House of Commons Standing Committee had missed the opportunity to debate it. By the time the Bill reached the Floor of the House on Report, Tory Back Benchers had already threatened to revolt on other key parts of the Bill and, not surprisingly, the relevant Government amendments failed to appear. After all, why risk trouble when the Government already had trouble? As a result, we had no chance in the Commons to discuss the amendments.
The Government's caution is understandable because adding attachment of benefit makes an already appalling Bill even worse. The Government's statements defending their position completely miss the fundamental difficulty.

9 pm

Ms. Primarolo: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) makes a point about confidentiality of information and attachment of earnings. Is it not legitimate for us to say that we expect to see in the next Finance Bill clauses that will instruct accountants of those who attempt to evade payment of taxes to disclose that information to the Treasury? The Treasury can then put an attachment on the earnings. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that would be a comparable measure? If we were talking about tax evasion, we would see the Conservative Benches full.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Lady is right. I am appalled by the way in which benefit fraud, which accounts for much less than tax fraud, is more fiercely treated. The Conservative Government are not the first to act in that way—it has had a long history. I do not understand why they allow it to happen. It is not right.
The position is even worse than the hon. Lady suggests. It is not a simple question of whether one gives the money that one should. The Government will assume that all those who do not pay their poll tax have sufficient funds to do so. One would assume that that was right for the income tax system, by definition. But that will not happen by definition under the Government's poll tax system. All those asked to pay the poll tax may not be receiving through the benefit system the money that they need to pay it. That point was put appropriately in the debate on disabled people and the elderly on low incomes.
The uprating will be based on the national average poll tax. The amount added to benefits will reflect average poll tax liabilities. Unfortunately, the person who has to pay that tax may not be Mr. or Mrs. Average. In fact, he or she may be the poorest in society and may be unfortunate enough not to live in an average local authority area. Such people are likely to live in an especially poor local authority area. The average poll tax bill in poor local authority areas will tend to be rather higher than the average nationally. These people will be asked to pay cash that they have not received and asked to pay bills that they are unable to pay.
Examples of the losers may be found in Southwark and Bermondsey.

Mr. Harris: What about Cornwall?

Mr. Taylor: According to the poll tax figures for 1988–89 issued by the Department of the Environment, the

poll tax in Southwark will be £515 per annum. Every person in Southwark on income support will have to find £53·80 per annum they do not have to pay the poll tax bill.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has rightly asked about Cornwall. This will not happen there. People in our area are fortunate. This is neither the fault of the people who live in the inner cities nor anything that people in Cornwall have deliberately set out to achieve, although people in Cornwall have good councillors. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the grant system works, sensible councils in other parts of the country will not necessarily have the same benefits. Many people will not be able to affect the running of their council. Perhaps all the people who are badly hit will change the way in which they vote, although it is difficult to understand why they should change their vote to vote for a party that introduced the problem. Their vote might not change the complexion of the council in any case. There is no guarantee that someone who has lost out as a result of the poll tax will be able to affect the running of the council.
The clause will force people to pay money that they do not have in circumstances in which they cannot change things. As was said earlier, it will literally take the food out of people's mouths. The prospect for such people is grim. They will have to pay more in the first instance than they have. If they are unable to pay the poll tax, an attachment order will be placed on them.

Ms. Primarolo: That is why the attachment order is unfair.

Mr. Taylor: As the hon. Lady said, the attachment order is unfair. It cannot be fair to ask people to pay the poll tax when they do not have the money to do so.
The Minister referred to electricity and gas bills, but the principle behind them is rather different because people can directly affect the amount of their gas and electricity bills. I would argue in fact that that system is not perfect. There should be a right to supply, and people should get the heat and warmth that they need as they pay. However, in the case of the poll tax, people have no such direct effect on what they pay. They cannot be careful with their poll tax, although the Government argue that they can through the vote. It will not work as simply as that. Individuals cannot make a decision on it.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Was the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber a couple of hours ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) said that the rates in a certain London borough had already fallen by £100 in anticipation of the poll tax and that they can be expected to fall still further in other districts that are ill-governed at present?

Mr. Taylor: I only wish that it was as simple as that. It does not work like that, and even if it did, I am sure that it would not be because poor old Joe Soap living in a certain district on income support thought, "I shall have to pay out a fortune if I do not change my vote." The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) knows that it does not work like that. If she thinks that she is too highly rated—I suspect that she does—and wants to change that, there is nothing that she can individually do about it. She can vote until she is blue in the face——

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) agree that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E.


Kellett-Bowman) has no idea about the kind of people to whom he is referring? She has enjoyed a European salary as well as a salary from this House, her husband has also enjoyed a European salary and she has farming interests. How can she expect to understand poor people's problems?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman was so insulting in his reference to me. I remind him that I have not been in the European Parliament for five years, and neither has my husband. I am full-time in this Parliament and I gave up my career at the Bar to be full-time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would withdraw.

Mr. Taylor: I am delighted to hear that unlike many of her colleagues the hon. Lady is a full-time Member of the House—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am keen to hear the hon. Member who has the Floor.

Mr. Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster on being full-time; I only wish that more of her colleagues were. I must gently remind the hon. Lady, however, that the income that she receives from this place is rather different from income support. Unless I am much mistaken, she does not sacrifice much of the salary that she earns in the process of her duties to try to understand the difficulties of those whom she attempts to represent. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) is right that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends do not understand. Perhaps I can explain to her with some mathematics. It is generally accepted that income support is the very least that is needed to sustain someone. If one tries to take more away from the poor than they have, they cannot survive. This penal measure should be dropped from the Bill, and I hope that Conservative Members will recognise that.

Mr. Harris: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) normally speaks about the poorest of the county of Cornwall. On this occasion it is noticeable that he did not volunteer Cornwall as an area that would be clobbered by the community charge. Because rates in Cornwall have historically been kept at a reasonable level, people on income support there will benefit from the average nature of the DHSS contribution to their community charge. The hon. Gentleman will know, because it is his party that is basically calling the tune in Cornwall, that a rate increase of 14 per cent. has been suggested for Cornwall.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose——

Mr. Harris: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, because the Minister must reply shortly.
Under the influence of the hon. Gentleman's party there is to be a 14 per cent. rate increase, and Cornwall is catching up fast in that regard.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose——

Mr. Harris: No, I cannot let the hon. Gentleman interrupt me.
I link those remarks with the comments of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who talked a lot—as Opposition Members have done in this debate and before—about inability to pay. The question that is never posed is whether under the existing system councils consider the ability of people to pay their rates—rates that are subject

to the 14 per cent. increase that is now being levied by Cornwall county council. Such a consideration never enters the argument.
I refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), as it is because of them that I intervene. The hon. Gentleman advanced the proposition that it is no business of the DHSS to tell the poll tax officer that the Department had paid someone an average 20 per cent. contribution towards his community charge. To my simple mind, it seems to flow from that that the hon. Member for Perry Barr is claiming that it is no business of the DHSS to pass on such information, and that if people can evade the community charge they should be left free to do so.

Mr. Rooker: rose——

Mr. Harris: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, for the reason that I have explained, and he would not give way to my intervention.

Mr. Rooker: I did.

Mr. Harris: Not to my second intervention. I must continue, because my hon. Friend the Minister has only three minutes in which to reply.
The DHSS has a duty and a moral obligation——

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman should not talk about morals.

Mr. Harris: If the DHSS has made a contribution to an individual's community charge, that information should be declared to the poll tax officer. That is only fair. We must remember always that it is not the Government who are paying, but people not on income support who are helping to finance those contributions. Many are themselves on very small incomes. In fairness to them, information about DHSS contributions should be made available to the poll tax officer in order to cut down on evasion once the community charge is introduced.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives. (Mr. Harris) is absolutely right and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is absolutely wrong. The hon. Member for Truro spoke about poor local authority areas, but it is poorly administered local authority areas that will result in large community charges. There will be needs assessments of all areas so that those that are poorer will receive more grant than others that are not so poor. However, that grant system will not make up for the extravagance or poor administration of individual local authorities. For example, on this year's figures, Southwark would receive £711 per adult support grant, compared with a national average of only £264.
Much of this debate was wasted by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) boxing with shadows. I give the House an absolute assurance that there is no question of census data being made available to community charge registration officers. Nothing in the Bill, and nothing in these amendments, would empower those officers to have access to census information. To suggest otherwise is nothing short of evil scaremongering. The hon. Gentleman said that all the information collected by the Secretary of State for Social Services would be passed to the community charge registration officer. As I have already explained, only names and addresses will be passed on. We shall make that clear in regulations made under this provision.
I referred earlier to farce, and I shall refer to more Opposition humbug. The hon. Member for Perry Barr expressed concern about census information. I assure him that no census data will be made available to CCROs. I point out that any system of local income tax, which I believe his party supports, would require a register to be drawn up showing the address of every taxpayer, and a lot more information besides.

It being a quarter past Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 288.

Division No. 431]
[9.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Allen, Graham
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fatchett, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Faulds, Andrew


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark


Battle, John
Flannery, Martin


Beckett, Margaret
Flynn, Paul


Beggs, Roy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bell, Stuart
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Foster, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Foulkes, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, John


Blair, Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Boateng, Paul
Galbraith, Sam


Boyes, Roland
Galloway, George


Bradley, Keith
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
George, Bruce


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Buchan, Norman
Golding, Mrs Llin


Buckley, George J.
Gould, Bryan


Caborn, Richard
Graham, Thomas


Callaghan, Jim
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Canavan, Dennis
Grocott, Bruce


Cartwright, John
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clay, Bob
Henderson, Doug


Clelland, David
Hinchliffe, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbett, Robin
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Ingram, Adam


Darling, Alistair
John, Brynmor


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Kennedy, Charles


Dewar, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dixon, Don
Kirkwood, Archy


Dobson, Frank
Lambie, David


Doran, Frank
Lamond, James


Douglas, Dick
Leighton, Ron


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lewis, Terry


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Litherland, Robert


Eastham, Ken
Livsey, Richard





Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Redmond, Martin


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Loyden, Eddie
Reid, Dr John


McAllion, John
Richardson, Jo


McAvoy, Thomas
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


McCartney, Ian
Robertson, George


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Rogers, Allan


McKelvey, William
Rooker, Jeff


McLeish, Henry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McNamara, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


McTaggart, Bob
Ruddock, Joan


McWilliam, John
Salmond, Alex


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Maginnis, Ken
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Short, Clare


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Strang, Gavin


Michael, Alun
Straw, Jack


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Turner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Vaz, Keith


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wall, Pat


Morley, Elliott
Wallace, James


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Walley, Joan


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N.


Murphy, Paul
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Nellist, Dave
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


O'Brien, William
Wilson, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Patchett, Terry
Worthington, Tony


Pike, Peter L.
Wray, Jimmy


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prescott, John



Primarolo, Dawn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen Adams.


Radice, Giles





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Alexander, Richard
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amos, Alan
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arbuthnot, James
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Buck, Sir Antony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Burt, Alistair


Atkins, Robert
Butcher, John


Atkinson, David
Butler, Chris


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butterfill, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carrington, Matthew


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bendall, Vivian
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chapman, Sydney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chope, Christopher


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Churchill, Mr


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Body, Sir Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Couchman, James


Bowis, John
Cran, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Curry, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Brazier, Julian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bright, Graham
Day, Stephen






Devlin, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dicks, Terry
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dover, Den
Knowles, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Lang, Ian


Emery, Sir Peter
Latham, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lawrence, Ivan


Evennett, David
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fallon, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Farr, Sir John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Favell, Tony
Lightbown, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lilley, Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lord, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
McCrindle, Robert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maclean, David


Franks, Cecil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Fry, Peter
Madel, David


Gale, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, George
Malins, Humfrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Maples, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marlow, Tony


Gorst, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gow, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gregory, Conal
Mellor, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miller, Sir Hal


Grist, Ian
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Roger


Hannam, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Harris, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hawkins, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Hayes, Jerry
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hayward, Robert
Mudd, David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neale, Gerrard


Heddle, John
Nelson, Anthony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Neubert, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hill, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Holt, Richard
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hordern, Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Howard, Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Portillo. Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Irving, Charles
Price, Sir David


Jack, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Redwood, John


Janman, Tim
Rhodes James, Robert


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kilfedder, James
Rossi, Sir Hugh


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rost, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rowe, Andrew





Ryder, Richard
Thorne, Neil


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thornton, Malcolm


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Sayeed, Jonathan
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Scott, Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tredinnick, David


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Trippier, David


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Keith
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watts, John


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Lewis
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Wilshire, David


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Summerson, Hugo
Woodcock, Mike


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)



Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tony Durant.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Question negatived.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their amendment No. 234:—

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 204.

Division No. 432]
[9.29 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Amos, Alan
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butcher, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butler, Chris


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butterfill, John


Atkins, Robert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Atkinson, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cash, William


Baldry, Tony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Chapman, Sydney


Bellingham, Henry
Chope, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Colvin, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Conway, Derek


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Body, Sir Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Peter
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cran, James


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Curry, David


Bowis, John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Day, Stephen


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Devlin, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Dicks, Terry


Bright, Graham
Dorrell, Stephen


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dover, Den


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Dunn, Bob


Browne, John (Winchester)
Durant, Tony






Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan


Emery, Sir Peter
Lee, John (Pendle)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fallon, Michael
Lightbown, David


Farr, Sir John
Lilley, Peter


Favell, Tony
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Fishburn, John Dudley
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Franks, Cecil
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Freeman, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
Malins, Humfrey


Fry, Peter
Mans, Keith


Gale, Roger
Maples, John


Gardiner, George
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gorst, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gow, Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Miller, Sir Hal


Gregory, Conal
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, John
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Alan
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hawkins, Christopher
Mudd, David


Hayes, Jerry
Neale, Gerrard


Hayward, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Michael


Heddle, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hill, James
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hind, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Phillip


Holt, Richard
Page, Richard


Hordern, Sir Peter
Paice, James


Howard, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Pawsey, James


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Portillo, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Price, Sir David


Hunter, Andrew
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Irving, Charles
Redwood, John


Jack, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Jackson, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Janman, Tim
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Key, Robert
Rost, Peter


Kilfedder, James
Rowe, Andrew


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Ryder, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Scott, Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lang, Ian
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Latham, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)





Sims, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tredinnick, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Trippier, David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Speed, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Viggers, Peter


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Stern, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stevens, Lewis
Ward, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Watts, John


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Wells, Bowen


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wheeler, John


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Ray


Summerson, Hugo
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Woodcock, Mike


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thorne, Neil
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thornton, Malcolm



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dewar, Donald


Allen, Graham
Dixon, Don


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dobson, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Doran, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Douglas, Dick


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barron, Kevin
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Battle, John
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Margaret
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beggs, Roy
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bell, Stuart
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Faulds, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Blair, Tony
Fisher, Mark


Boateng, Paul
Flannery, Martin


Boyes, Roland
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Foulkes, George


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John


Buckley, George J.
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Richard
Galbraith, Sam


Callaghan, Jim
Galloway, George


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce


Cartwright, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gould, Bryan


Clay, Bob
Graham, Thomas


Clelland, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grocott, Bruce


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hardy, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbyn, Jeremy
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cousins, Jim
Henderson, Doug


Cox, Tom
Hinchliffe, David


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cummings, John
Holland, Stuart


Dalyell, Tam
Home Robertson, John


Darling, Alistair
Hood, Jimmy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)






Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Brien, William


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Parry, Robert


Illsley, Eric
Patchett, Terry


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L.


Janner, Greville
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


John, Brynmor
Prescott, John


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Charles
Radice, Giles


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Redmond, Martin


Kirkwood, Archy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lamond, James
Reid, Dr John


Leighton, Ron
Richardson, Jo


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Robertson, George


Lewis, Terry
Rogers, Allan


Litherland, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


Livsey, Richard
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rowlands, Ted


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ruddock, Joan


Loyden, Eddie
Salmond, Alex


McAllion, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, Ian
Short, Clare


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McNamara, Kevin
Soley, Clive


McTaggart, Bob
Spearing, Nigel


McWilliam, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Maginnis, Ken
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marek, Dr John
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wall, Pat


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wallace, James


Maxton, John
Walley, Joan


Meacher, Michael
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Meale, Alan
Wareing, Robert N.


Michael, Alun
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wilson, Brian


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Winnick, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morgan, Rhodri
Worthington, Tony


Morley, Elliott
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Mullin, Chris
Tellers for the Noes:


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Allen Adams.

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 234 agreed to.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in their amendment No. 33:—

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 202.

Division No. 433]
[9.42 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Amos, Alan
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Body, Sir Richard


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bottomley, Peter


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Atkinson, David
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowis, John


Baldry, Tony
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Batiste, Spencer
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Bellingham, Henry
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Bendall, Vivian
Brazier, Julian


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bright, Graham


Bevan, David Gilroy
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon





Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Heddle, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L


Buck, Sir Antony
Hill, James


Burt, Alistair
Hind, Kenneth


Butcher, John
Holt, Richard


Butler, Chris
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butterfill, John
Howard, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carrington, Matthew
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cash, William
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chope, Christopher
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irving, Charles


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jack, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jackson, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Janman, Tim


Conway, Derek
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Couchman, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cran, James
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kilfedder, James


Curry, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Day, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dover, Den
Lang, Ian


Dunn, Bob
Latham, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Emery, Sir Peter
Lee, John (Pendle)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fallon, Michael
Lightbown, David


Farr, Sir John
Lilley, Peter


Favell, Tony
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Fishburn John Dudley
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
McLoughlin, Patrick


Franks, Cecil
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Fomst)


French, Douglas
Major, Rt Hon John


Fry, Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, George
Maples, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Gow, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mellor, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Miller, Sir Hal


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mills, Iain


Gregory, Conal
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, John
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Alan
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hawkins, Christopher
Mudd, David


Hayes, Jerry
Neale, Gerrard


Hayward, Robert
Nelson, Anthony






Neubert, Michael
Stern, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stevens, Lewis


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Page, Richard
Sumberg, David


Paice, James
Summerson, Hugo


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Portillo, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Price, Sir David
Thorne, Neil


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


Redwood, John
Thurnham, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Riddick, Graham
Tracey, Richard


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Trippier, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Viggers, Peter


Rost, Peter
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rowe, Andrew
Walden, George


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Waller, Gary


Sackville, Hon Tom
Ward, John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watts, John


Scott, Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Ray


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Woodcock, Mike


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Speed, Keith
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Mr. Richard Ryder.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Allen, Graham
Clay, Bob


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clelland, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barron, Kevin
Corbett, Robin


Battle, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beckett, Margaret
Cousins, Jim


Beggs, Roy
Cox, Tom


Bell, Stuart
Cryer, Bob


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cummings, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dalyell, Tam


Bermingham, Gerald
Darling, Alistair


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blair, Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Dixon, Don


Bradley, Keith
Dobson, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Doran, Frank


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Buchan, Norman
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Buckley, George J.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Caborn, Richard
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Canavan, Dennis
Fatchett, Derek


Cartwright, John
Faulds, Andrew


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)





Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fisher, Mark
Maxton, John


Flannery, Martin
Meacher, Michael


Flynn, Paul
Meale, Alan


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Michael, Alun


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foster, Derek
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Foulkes, George
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fraser, John
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fyfe, Maria
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Galbraith, Sam
Morgan, Rhodri


Galloway, George
Morley, Elliott


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Murphy, Paul


Golding, Mrs Llin
Nellist, Dave


Graham, Thomas
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Brien, William


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Parry, Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Patchett, Terry


Hardy, Peter
Pike, Peter L.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Prescott, John


Henderson, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Hinchliffe, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Radice, Giles


Holland, Stuart
Redmond, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hood, Jimmy
Reid, Dr John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Richardson, Jo


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Robertson, George


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ruddock, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Salmond, Alex


Ingram, Adam
Sedgemore, Brian


Janner, Greville
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


John, Brynmor
Short, Clare


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Soley, Clive


Kirkwood, Archy
Spearing, Nigel


Lamond, James
Steinberg, Gerry


Leighton, Ron
Strang, Gavin


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lewis, Terry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Litherland, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Livsey, Richard
Vaz, Keith


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wall, Pat


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wallace, James


Loyden, Eddie
Walley, Joan


McAllion, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McAvoy, Thomas
Wareing, Robert N.


McCartney, Ian
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McKelvey, William
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McLeish, Henry
Wilson, Brian


McNamara, Kevin
Winnick, David


McTaggart, Bob
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McWilliam, John
Worthington, Tony


Madden, Max
Wray, Jimmy


Maginnis, Ken
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mahon, Mrs Alice



Marek, Dr John
Tellers for the Noes:


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen Adams.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 33 disagreed to.

Amendment ( a) made in lieu of Lords amendment No. 33 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 239 to 241, 29, 30A, 32, 36 to 41,44,45,47,49, 50,53 to 62,65,66,72,76 to 78, 78A, 79, 80, 266 to 270,87 and 271 to 276 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 235 to 238, 242 to 265, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 42, 43, 46, 48, 51, 52, 63, 64, 67 to 71,73 to 75, 81 to 86 and 277 agreed to.

Mr. McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will he aware of the great arguments earlier about whether we should have a guillotine. Having heard the Opposition argue so much against it, it seems strange that they have taken up so much time on Divisions. Could it be because today the Labour party announced changes in the rating system and is having great internal arguments which it does not want to bring into the Chamber?

"(2) The regulations may contain such provisions as are mentioned in subsection (3) below as regards any case which falls within a prescribed description and where—
(a) as regards a hereditament or hereditaments the chargeable amount for a chargeable day falls to be determined under section 39, 41 or 46 above, and
(b) the day falls within the financial year concerned.

(3) The provisions are that—
(a) the chargeable amount shall be such as is found in accordance with prescribed rules, and
(b) sections 39(4) to (6) and 40 above, sections 41(4) to (4B) and 42 above, or section 46(4) to (7) above (as the case may be) shall not apply.

(3A) A chargeable amount found in accordance with rules prescribed under this section may be the same as or different from what it would be apart from the regulations.

(3AA) Rules prescribed under this section may be framed by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State thinks fit."

Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 19, at end add
'having regard to the need to promote local employment'.

Lords amendments Nos. 90, 91, 195 and 196.

Mr. Chope: These amendments are all concerned with the transitional protection that we should give to those businesses which would otherwise face large rates increases in 1990, resulting from revaluation or the introduction of the national non-domestic rate. The amendments discharge commitments given when the Bill was before the House. Before explaining their purpose and effects, I should put them in context.
There have been many predictions about the effects on business of a revaluation and introduction of the NNDR, and it is time to consider the facts. The first is that, as the Government are committed to raising broadly the same from the NNDR as is raised from business rates now, there is no question of a rates increase for business as a whole. The second is that the greater impact on rates bills in most areas will be that of revaluation. Revaluation will be necessary irrespective of the introduction of the NNDR, and it will be necessary whichever party is in office. On 3 March the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) confirmed in Committee that his party accepted the need for revaluation.
The third fact is that after 15 years without a revaluation rateable values are undoubtedly out of line with commercial rents and with the relative economic strengths of different sectors of the economy and regions. Many businesses, often in the most hard-pressed areas, are paying too much, which is why revaluation is expected to

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a question for the Chair. The Standing Orders have not been breached in any way.

Clause 49

SPECIAL PROVISION FOR 1990–95

Lords amendment: No. 88, in page 27, line 35, leave out "before the beginning of the year"

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 89, in page 27, line 36, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—

confer major benefits worth hundreds of millions of pounds on manufacturing industry, especially in the north and the midlands.

The fourth fact, contrary to the forecasts of some organisations, is that there is little evidence that small businesses will face larger rates increases than large businesses. The big increases are likely to be confined to areas which have prospered most over the past 15 years and whose rates as a result are way below what they should be—the prime high street retail sites and, possibly, out-of-town superstores. These are activities where large businesses predominate. The secondary neighbourhood shopping centres and corner shops are likely to face appreciably smaller increases, since it is commonly accepted that they have done less well than prime shops in the past 15 years. Small manufacturers are likely to gain, but it may be more difficult for small businesses to absorb increases quickly, and I shall come to that point.

The introduction of the NNDR linked to the retail prices index will ensure that businesses throughout the country can plan investments in a climate of unprecedented rates stability.

Mr. McLoughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are being criticised by Derbyshire county council for the alleged problems of the health authority? Southern Derbyshire health authority allocated a 4·5 per cent. increase for its rates this year, but was landed with a 13 per cent. increase, which cost the authority an extra £234,000. It was difficult for it to budget for that, and the money has to come out of that allocated for other services. The proposed link to inflation will help authorities, such as health authorities, plan their budgets sensibly.

10 pm

Mr. Chope: As usual, my hon. Friend makes his point very well. It is spot on, because the stability that will be introduced by these changes will be welcomed, not only by businesses, but by all ratepayers, including hospitals.
Small businesses stand to gain from this more than most, as they are less well equipped to cope with unpredictable increases and cannot trade off high rates in one area for low rates elsewhere. We are thus moving to a simpler, fairer and more stable rating system for all businesses, as many of the business organisations have come to recognise. We are determined though that it should be done without any businesses having to face the sort of rate shock so frequently forced on them in recent years by local authorities run by the Labour party. We are determined that, for the limited number of businesses that will face large rate increases, these will be introduced gradually in stages to give them time to adjust.
We are especially sensitive to the difficulties of small businesses. We have made it clear at all stages that there will be generous transitional arrangements, taking the form of a ceiling on the percentage by which rate bills may rise from one year to the next. We have had some representations from the business organisations about what that ceiling might be, but we shall not reach a final decision until after we have better forecasts of the likely effects of revaluation, which will be available in the autumn.
The Opposition amendment to Lords amendment No. 89 would require the Secretary of State, in setting the rules for finding the chargeable amount due under the transitional arrangements, to do so
having regard to the need to promote local employment".
If only the Opposition would practise what they preach. Our whole policy has
regard to the need to promote local employment".
That is why the Government have succeeded in reducing unemployment by more than 500,000 since the last general election.
As I have just explained, we are eliminating two major factors which discourage local employment where it is most desperately needed—in the north of England and in the inner cities. We are ending once and for all the situation in which inefficient Labour authorities can bleed local industry dry to pay for their profligacy. We are creating the stability necessary for investment, and through revaluation we are ending the situation in which monstrously out-of-date valuations result in businesses in these areas paying far more in rates than they should. Our whole policy encourages employment in those areas where it is most needed—those areas where the policies of the Labour party have often had the freest rein.
We had made a start through rate capping. For example, in Waltham Forest we have reduced rates this year by 28 per cent., and in Ealing by 22 per cent. We do not want to delay the benefits due to those who have been paying too much any longer than is necessary, but the transitional arrangements will have to be self-financing. There is no reason to make other taxpayers or community charge payers pay for protection for businesses.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Will the hon. Gentleman please have the honesty to explain the consequences of self-financing? Self-financing means that manufacturing industry in the north and the midlands will

pay relatively more to finance the transitional arrangements of much more prosperous business, commerce and industry elsewhere. Will the Government be honest and concede that the self-financing mechanism is one that claws back many of the advantages about which the Minister has just been talking?

Mr. Chope: It is true that the full benefits of the large reductions will not come through straight away for some businesses, but they will come through in due course.

Mr. Allen McKay: How long?

Mr. Chope: We estimate that within about two years most businesses will receive the full benefits of the reductions, but for some businesses it will take a little longer.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I should not have intervened but for the fact that I am deeply worried because the amendment gives my hon. Friend—in whom I have a great deal of faith—the opportunity to introduce regulations. I know that basically the amendment relates to regulations with regard to non-domestic premises, but we have heard today that the Labour party proposes to replace the community charge with two taxes. Would that enable the Opposition to replace what my hon. Friend honourably and decently is trying to do to make things more helpful with two, three, four or even five taxes? If that is the case, we have every right to be worried and concerned, because it is rather open-ended.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right to express concern about these matters. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) may tell the House that his party proposes to have two new taxes to replace domestic rates or the community charge, but Opposition Members have not yet made it clear what will happen with non-domestic rates, which is what we are discussing.
I expect the substantial majority of the rates increases and reductions to go through completely within two or three years. Moreover, all businesses due to benefit will have their rates reduced at the outset, and they will be able to plan their business in the knowledge of the full reduction that they will eventually receive.
As the Bill left this House, it contained provisions for setting such a ceiling for the years 1990–95 and for the costs to be met by a premium on the NNDR poundage, which would have been phased over the same period. As a result of the views expressed in the House and by business representative organisations, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on Report on 21 April that we would make some modifications to the arrangements. These amendments give effect to those commitments.
The debate was originally timed to go on for much longer, but, because of the antics of the Opposition, much of that time has been wasted on pointless Divisions. Notwithstanding that, I shall make my remarks shorter than I otherwise would have done.

Mr. Rooker: The Minister has a damned cheek. Earlier this afternoon, with other Conservative Members, he voted to stop us debating the Lords amendments and thereby deprived us of the chance of voting against any or all of those to which we object. He then complained when we, Her Majesty's Opposition, decided—it was not the Government deciding for us—what we will vote against,


without orders from the Government. He had a damned cheek to make that remark. We choose what happens when he has cut our time.

Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: No, I shall not give way. The Minister took too long anyway. The debate finishes at 10.15. The Minister has a damned cheek, and I am entitled to make a complaint about his remark, just to set it on the record.
On 9 June, in another place, the Earl of Caithness said:
This is not to deny that there will be some businesses in particular locations that will face large increases."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 June 1988; Vol. 497, c. 1539.]
I wait in due course—it will not be this year, but some time before the howls of protest from Conservative Members—for the time when the effects of revaluation and the operation of the national business rate—I do not know why we changed it, but it is still our unified business rate—come together. That will cause horrendous problems in many parts of the country.
It is not only industry that will gain. Obviously, old factories, which, tragically, not many people want to rent, will tend to fall relatively in rateable value. But not all old factories are in the north. There are many manufacturing areas in the south. Rates will go through the roof. In Committee, reference was made to an enterprise in Canterbury—not a factory, a nursery. The effect of the national business rate and revaluation will put up rate payments by 722 per cent. It is the case that I always remember, because we did not have a higher example. The increase will be 722 per cent. because of the operation of revaluation, along with the unified business rate.
It is true that many aspects of business have been led to believe that, on paper, they will gain. That is right. In the midlands and in the north, on paper, many businesses, particularly traditional businesses, will gain, and new businesses—high-tech offices, high street shops and so on—will pay more.
The gainers will have their gains capped to buttress the losses for those who are to lose. Business men in the north of the country were told, "There is a stack of money coming off the rates. People down south are going to pay a lot more". That is not true. The business men in the midlands and the north will pay such a surcharge so that, for example, people in that nursery in Canterbury do not have to pay that 722 per cent. all in one go. [Interruption.] The fact that they will not get all the gains that Ministers said they would get has not been fully explained to business men in the midlands and the north. I do not say this as a criticism; I must take this brief opportunity, which is all I am permitted, so that in 1989 and 1990, when the scheme is introduced, no Conservative Member will be able to say that the Opposition did not warn them.
When the howls of protest come from small and large businesses all over Britain, it will be the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Even in the south, some businesses will be hit. The Opposition have warned about this—to their credit, so did one or two Conservative Members—in Committee and on Report. We have said that the system will not quite work as the propaganda says. We do not have the details. The Minister still cannot tell us the length of the transitional periods when the gainers have their money capped. He said that it would be two years for some but a lot longer for other businesses.
Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), applauded the fact

that the poll tax will be tied to the rate of inflation. That is fine, as long as Conservative Members can say to their constituents in due course that the personal poll tax went through the roof exponentially in two or three years, even under Tory authorities, because the business rate was capped artificially in line with inflation. We all know that by no stretch of imagination can local authority expenditure normally be compartmentalised in the retail price index. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why."] For the same reason that NHS expenditure cannot be compartmentalised in the RPI.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Lady voted to limit our remarks and to stop us from debating, so I do not intend to give way to her.
Local authority expenditure cannot be compartmentalised, for an obvious reason—its nature. It is labour intensive. Even some local government capital increases by much more than the RPI. The same applies to the health authorities, as the hon. Lady knows. If the business rate and Government grant are capped in line with inflation, for every 1 per cent. that local authority expenditure is above the Government's imposed norms—what Whitehall thinks is best for the hon. Lady's local authority—the poll tax of her constituents will increase by 4p. That is 4p for 1 p. The hon. Lady will have a job explaining to her constituents that it is not a matter of one for one. She will have to explain why the business rate is capped. Businesses will not be paying a rate that is at all relative to what they receive from local authorities.
It is important that local authorities talk to businesses. I want that to happen. We support the revaluation. It should have occurred in the domestic sector, let alone in the industrial sector. But revaluation at the same time as the national business rate causes the problem. In due course, the Government may decide to go ahead with one and not the other. They cannot say that they will not because they do not yet have the figures and will not have the sample survey until later in the year.
The Minister told businesses that some will lose and some will gain, but overall the Government would be merely collecting the same amount, so it would he OK. Exactly the same argument applies to the poll tax. It only collects the same amount as domestic rates, although there are massive differences in how people will lose and gain. It will be the same in the business sector. It is no good the Minister saying, "We are only collecting the same amount of money," when small business men and others are queueing up in his office saying, "You did not explain, Minister, that you were putting us out of business by what you did. You did not tell the House of Commons how much extra we would have to pay, but you pushed the legislation through without proper debate. You said that you would give us some transitional protection, but we now find that that does not work for our businesses in our part of the country." That is bound to happen, as the Minister knows.
In the interests of good order and good debate, I draw my remarks to a close so that all hon. Members who voted for the guillotine can actually participate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Thirty seconds of the debate remain. That shows the ludicrousness of the guillotine procedure.
The Government have come to the House with no figures and have resisted the demand made by small businesses for a lower rate. The Minister knows that he and his Government will still be in power when small business men say, "You did not tell us the truth." The figures do not add up. They have never been given, and the Government have not——

It being a quarter past Ten o'clock MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 88 agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put forthwith, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in their amendment No. 300:—

The House Divided: Ayes 293, Noes 206.

Division No. 434]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Alexander, Richard
Colvin, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Conway, Derek


Amos, Alan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Couchman, James


Ashby, David
Cran, James


Atkins, Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkinson, David
Curry, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Baldry, Tony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Dicks, Terry


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bevan, David Gilroy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dover, Den


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dunn, Bob


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Durant, Tony


Body, Sir Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bottomley, Peter
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Farr, Sir John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Favell, Tony


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forth, Eric


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Browne, John (Winchester)
Franks, Cecil


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Freeman, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Fry, Peter


Butcher, John
Gale, Roger


Butler, Chris
Gardiner, George


Butterfill, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cash, William
Gorst, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gow, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Gower, Sir Raymond


Chope, Christopher
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Churchill, Mr
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Gregory, Conal





Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mellor, David


Grist, Ian
Miller, Sir Hal


Ground, Patrick
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Christopher
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hayes, Jerry
Moss, Malcolm


Hayward, Robert
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mudd, David


Heddle, John
Neale, Gerrard


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nelson, Anthony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neubert, Michael


Hill, James
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Holt, Richard
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howard, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Paice, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irving, Charles
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert
Price, Sir David


Janman, Tim
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jessel, Toby
Redwood, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Key, Robert
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ryder, Richard


Knowles, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lang, Ian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Latham, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Speed, Keith


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stevens, Lewis


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Madel, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Major, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Malins, Humfrey
Summerson, Hugo


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maples, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marlow, Tony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thorne, Neil


Maude, Hon Francis
Thornton, Malcolm


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thurnham, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townend, John (Bridlington)






Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wells, Bowen


Tracey, Richard
Wheeler, John


Tredinnick, David
Whitney, Ray


Trippier, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trotter, Neville
Wilkinson, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilshire, David


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wolfson, Mark


Viggers, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Woodcock, Mike


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Waldegrave, Hon William
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walden, George
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waller, Gary



Ward, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Alan Howarth.


Watts, John





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Allen, Graham
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Anderson, Donald
Fatchett, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Faulds, Andrew


Armstrong, Hilary
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fisher, Mark


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Flannery, Martin


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Flynn, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Battle, John
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Beckett, Margaret
Foster, Derek


Beggs, Roy
Foulkes, George


Beith, A. J.
Fraser, John


Bell, Stuart
Fyfe, Maria


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galbraith, Sam


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Galloway, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Blair, Tony
George, Bruce


Boateng, Paul
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Boyes, Roland
Gould, Bryan


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Buchan, Norman
Grocott, Bruce


Buckley, George J.
Hardy, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Callaghan, Jim
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Haynes, Frank


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cartwright, John
Henderson, Doug


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clay, Bob
Holland, Stuart


Clelland, David
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Janner, Greville


Cummings, John
John, Brynmor


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Darling, Alistair
Kennedy, Charles


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Kirkwood, Archy


Dewar, Donald
Lambie, David


Dixon, Don
Lamond, James


Dobson, Frank
Leighton, Ron


Doran, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Douglas, Dick
Lewis, Terry


Duffy, A. E. P.
Litherland, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Livsey, Richard


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eastham, Ken
Lofthouse, Geoffrey





Loyden, Eddie
Redmond, Martin


McAlhon, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


McAvoy, Thomas
Reid, Dr John


McCartney, Ian
Richardson, Jo


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


McKelvey, William
Robertson, George


McLeish, Henry
Rogers, Allan


McNamara, Kevin
Rooker, Jeff


McTaggart, Bob
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McWilliam, John
Rowlands, Ted


Madden, Max
Ruddock, Joan


Maginnis, Ken
Salmond, Alex


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sedgemore, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Clare


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maxton, John
Smith, C (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J (Monk'ds E)


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Michael, Alun
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Rhodri
Turner, Dennis


Morley, Elliott
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wall, Pat


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walley, Joan


Mullin, Chris
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Murphy, Paul
Waremg, Robert N


Nellist, Dave
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


O'Brien, William
Wilson, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Patchett, Terry
Worthington, Tony


Pike, Peter L
Wray, Jimmy


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prescott, John



Primarolo, Dawn
Tellers for the Noes:


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mrs Llin Golding and Mr Adam Ingram.


Radice, Giles

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 300 disagreed to.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with i he Lords in their amendment No. 302:—

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 205.

Division No. 435]
[10.29 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Alexander, Richard
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Amos, Alan
Bright, Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ashby, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Atkins, Robert
Browne, John (Winchester)


Atkinson, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Buck, Sir Antony


Baldry, Tony
Burt, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Butcher, John


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Chris


Bendall, Vivian
Butterfill, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Carrington, Matthew


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cash, William


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Body, Sir Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Boswell, Tim
Chope, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter
Churchill, Mr


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bowis, John
Colvin, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Conway, Derek






Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Robert B (Harts W)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Cran, James
Kilfedder, James


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Curry, David
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dicks, Terry
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lang, Ian


Dover, Den
Latham, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Ivan


Durant, Tony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Emery, Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fallon, Michael
Lightbown, David


Farr, Sir John
Lilley, Peter


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fishburn, John Dudley
McCrindle, Robert


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
McLoughlin, Patrick


Franks, Cecil
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


French, Douglas
Madel, David


Fry, Peter
Major, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Gardiner, George
Mans, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maples, John


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gow, Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Miller, Sir Hal


Gregory, Conal
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Ground, Patrick
Moate, Roger


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, John
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Alan
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hawkins, Christopher
Mudd, David


Hayes, Jerry
Neale, Gerrard


Hayward, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Michael


Heddle, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hill, James
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hind, Kenneth
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Holt, Richard
Page, Richard


Howard, Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patnick, Irvine


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Irving, Charles
Price, Sir David


Jack, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Janman, Tim
Redwood, John


Jessel, Toby
Rhodes James, Robert


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham





Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thorne, Neil


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thornton, Malcolm


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thurnham, Peter


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rost, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rowe, Andrew
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tredinnick, David


Ryder, Richard
Trippier, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sayeed, Jonathan
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Ward, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Watts, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wells, Bowen


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, John


Speed, Keith
Whitney, Ray


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilkinson, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilshire, David


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


Stern, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stevens, Lewis
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Woodcock, Mike


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sumberg, David



Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Alan Howarth.


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cohen, Harry


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Allen, Graham
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Cox, Tom


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cryer, Bob


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cummings, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Darling, Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Battle, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Beckett, Margaret
Dewar, Donald


Beggs, Roy
Dixon, Don


Beith, A. J.
Dobson, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Doran, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Douglas, Dick


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Blair, Tony
Eastham, Ken


Boateng, Paul
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boyes, Roland
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bradley, Keith
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Buchan, Norman
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Buckley, George J.
Fisher, Mark


Caborn, Richard
Flannery, Martin


Callaghan, Jim
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Cartwright, John
Foster, Derek


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foulkes, George


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Fraser, John


Clay, Bob
Fyfe, Maria


Clelland, David
Galbraith, Sam


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Galloway, George






Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Michael, Alun


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


George, Bruce
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Gould, Bryan
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Graham, Thomas
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morley, Elliott


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hardy, Peter
Mullin, Chris


Harman, Ms Harriet
Murphy, Paul


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Nellist, Dave


Haynes, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Brien, William


Henderson, Doug
O'Neill, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Parry, Robert


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Patchett, Terry


Holland, Stuart
Pike, Peter L.


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hood, Jimmy
Prescott, John


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Reid, Dr John


Illsley, Eric
Richardson, Jo


Ingram, Adam
Robertson, George


Janner, Greville
Rogers, Allan


John, Brynmor
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Charles
Ruddock, Joan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Salmond, Alex


Kirkwood, Archy
Sedgemore, Brian


Lambie, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leighton, Ron
Short, Clare


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; Fbury)


Livsey, Richard
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spearing, Nigel


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steinberg, Gerry


Loyden, Eddie
Strang, Gavin


McAllion, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McCartney, Ian
Turner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Vaz, Keith


McKelvey, William
Wall, Pat


McLeish, Henry
Walley, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McTaggart, Bob
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McWilliam, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Madden, Max
Wilson, Brian


Maginnis, Ken
Winnick, David


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marek, Dr John
Worthington, Tony


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wray, Jimmy


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)



Maxton, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Meacher, Michael
Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.


Meale, Alan

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 302 accordingly disagreed to.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in their amendment No. 303:—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 205.

Division No. 436]
[10.43 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkins, Robert


Amos, Alan
Atkinson, David


Arbuthnot, James
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)





Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Gardiner, George


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bendall, Vivian
Gill, Christopher


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gorst, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gow, Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Body, Sir Richard
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Grist, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Ground, Patrick


Bowis, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hanley, Jeremy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hannam, John


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Haselhurst, Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hawkins, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayes, Jerry


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hayward, Robert


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Heddle, John


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butcher, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butler, Chris
Hill, James


Butterfill, John
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carrington, Matthew
Holt, Richard


Cash, William
Howard, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, G. (Cannock S B'wd)


Chapman, Sydney
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Churchill, Mr
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Irving, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jack, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Conway, Derek
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Key, Robert


Curry, David
Kilfedder, James


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwatgr)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knowles, Michael


Dover, Den
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dunn, Bob
Lang, Ian


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Farr, Sir John
Lightbown, David


Favell, Tony
Lilley, Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lord, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fishburn, Dudley
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, Robert


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maclean, David


Franks, Cecil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Fry, Peter
Madel, David






Major, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Mans, Keith
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maples, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marland, Paul
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marlow, Tony
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Speed, Keith


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maude, Hon Francis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mellor, David
Stern, Michael


Miller, Sir Hal
Stevens, Lewis


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Monro, Sir Hector
Sumberg, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Summerson, Hugo


Moore, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mudd, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N


Neubert, Michael
Thorne, Neil


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trippier, David


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Portillo, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Powell, William (Corby)
Walden, George


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


Redwood, John
Ward, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Watts, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wheeler, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Widdecombe, Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wilkinson, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wilshire, David


Rost, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Rowe, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Woodcock, Mike


Sackville, Hon Tom
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Younger, Rt Hon George


Scott, Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Richard Ryder and Mr. Alan Howarth.


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bermingham, Gerald


Allen, Graham
Bidwell, Sydney


Anderson, Donald
Blair, Tony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boateng, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Boyes, Roland


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bradley, Keith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Barron, Kevin
Buchan, Norman


Battle, John
Buckley, George J.


Beckett, Margaret
Caborn, Richard


Beggs, Roy
Callaghan, Jim


Beith, A. J.
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cartwright, John





Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lamond, James


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Leighton, Ron


Clay, Bob
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clelland, David
Lewis, Terry


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Litherland, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Livsey, Richard


Coleman, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Loyden, Eddie


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAllion, John


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Cox, Tom
McCartney, Ian


Cryer, Bob
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cummings, John
McKelvey, William


Dalyell, Tam
McLeish, Henry


Darling, Alistair
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McTaggart, Bob


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McWilliam, John


Dewar, Donald
Madden, Max


Dixon, Don
Maginnis, Ken


Dobson, Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Doran, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Douglas, Dick
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Meale, Alan


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Michael, Alun


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Faulds, Andrew
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fisher, Mark
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Flannery, Martin
Morgan, Rhodri


Flynn, Paul
Morley, Elliott


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Foulkes, George
Murphy, Paul


Fraser, John
Nellist, Dave


Fyfe, Maria
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galbraith, Sam
O'Brien, William


Galloway, George
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Parry, Robert


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Graham, Thomas
Prescott, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Radice, Giles


Grocott, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Harman, Ms Harriet
Reid, Dr John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Richardson, Jo


Haynes, Frank
Robertson, George


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rogers, Allan


Heffer, Eric S.
Rooker, Jeff


Henderson, Doug
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hinchliffe, David
Rowlands, Ted


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ruddock, Joan


Holland, Stuart
Salmond, Alex


Home Robertson, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Hood, Jimmy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Illsley, Eric
Soley, Clive


Ingram, Adam
Spearing, Nigel


John, Brynmor
Steinberg, Gerry


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kennedy, Charles
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Turner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Vaz, Keith


Lambie, David
Wall, Pat






Wallace, James
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Walley, Joan
Wilson, Brian


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Winnick, David


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Wise, Mrs Audrey





Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Wray, Jimmy
Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.


Young, David (Bolton SE)

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 303 accordingly disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 304 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 89 to 91, 278, 281, 283, 284, 92 to 114, 292, 293, 115 to 117, 294, 118, 119, 139, 142, 182, 183,296 to 299,301, 305 to 311,313 to 316, 319 to 321, 324 and 327 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 279, 280, 282, 285 to 291, 120 to 138, 140, 141, 143 to 170, 172 to 181, 184, 185, 295, 312, 317, 318, 322, 323, 325, 326 and 328 to 334 agreed to.

Schedule 15

AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 335, in page 139, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 44.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 206, 339, 405 and 408.

Mr. Lang: Lords amendments Nos. 335, 339, 408 and 206 are drafting amendments to the structure of schedule 15, which presently consists of two parts. Part I contains amendments relating to England and Wales and part II refers to amendments relating to Scotland. However, several of the Acts amended in part I apply to Great Britain, and therefore it is preferable that a third part of the schedule should contain the amendments to those Acts. That is achieved by Lords amendment No. 408. No policy change is involved.
Lords amendment No. 405 is a technical one intended to clarify the wording of the power under the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 to enable the Secretary of State to provide a grant "safety net" for local authorities so that the changes to the grant system that have been brought forward can be phased in rather than for the full effect to be felt within a single year. Again, no change of policy is involved.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I do not wish to detain the House long because there are a number of other matters that we wish to consider.
If the amendments are purely technical, why are they being introduced at this stage? Why were they not spotted earlier? I understand that amendments Nos. 335 and 339 are taking sections of the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966 and the International Organisations Act 1968, as well as others, out of the Bill. Those sections are being replaced by amendments Nos. 405 and 408. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is so?
I understand that the International Organisations Act 1968 relates to diplomatic exemption. That is a controversial matter in terms of taxation and criminal charges. Widespread concern has been expressed about those issues. How many organisations are covered by the International Organisations Act, which is the subject of the amendments?

Mr. Lang: With regard to amendments Nos. 335, 339, 408 and 206, I have already made it clear that part I of the schedule contains amendments relating to England and Wales and part II contains amendments relating to Scotland. Some of the Acts that are amended by part I apply to Great Britain and, as a result of the progress of the Bill through the House, it has been considered

appropriate to redesign the schedule to clarify what applies to Great Britain and what applies to Scotland. If my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) can contain himself, we shall cover diplomatic exemptions in a later amendment.
Amendment No. 405 relates to the clarification of the safety net provision. Paragraph 2(4) was included in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 to allow the Secretary of State to provide a grant safety net. We were concerned that the changes in grant distribution among local authorities as a result of that Act—although not large in comparison with the total sums involved—might cause short-term problems for some authorities and obstruct a smooth transition to the new system of local government finance.
The intention is to allow the Secretary of State to phase the shifts in grant entitlement rather than to have a sudden change. The original paragraph 2(4) was confusing in that context. For the sake of clarification, we are proposing amendment No. 405. I hope that my hon. Friend will find that it makes the position much clearer.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 335 and 340 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 336 to 339 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 341, in page 141, line 8, leave out from "prescribe" to end of line 9 and insert—
"(a) the manner in which and the principles, rules and considerations by reference to which the net annual value of lands and heritages is to be arrived at under subsection (8) above;
(b) that the principles, rules and considerations referred to in paragraph (a) above or any of them shall be such as are determined in accordance with the regulations."

Mr. Lang: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 342 to 344, 346 to 349, 351 to 354, 409 and 410.

11 pm

Mr. Lang: The amendments deal with several aspects of rating and valuation. Amendment No. 341 provides power to prescribe principles of valuation, and it may be helpful to explain the purpose of the provision and outline the area in which the regulation-making power may be used.
The amendment provides a means whereby the Secretary of State may, if necessary, introduce measures further to harmonise valuation practice north and south of the border. We do not envisage that wide use will be made of the power, but there is one area of difference which requires to be brought into line before the 1990 revaluation and the power provided by amendment No. 341 may be used to achieve this. It is the decapitalisation rate used in the contractor's principle valuations in Scotland and the contractor's test valuations in England and Wales.
Amendments Nos. 342 and 343 deal with provisions for de-rating. Amendment No. 342 deals with the exemption from rating of certain church buildings. The broad intention underlying the amendment is to provide de-rating on certain buildings used for church administration, and there will be consultation before the relevant order-making powers are used. Amendment No. 343 deals with exemption of certain salmon fishings from ratings—[Interruption.]—on the same basis as the


equivalent provisions for England and Wales. It prevents the element of double taxation which could arise in circumstances where fisheries board assessments are payable as well as local authority rates.

Mr. A. J. Beith: If no district fisheries board rate is assessed. will normal rates be paid by the salmon proprietor?

Mr. Lang: That will be the case. Our expectation is that the number of district fisheries boards will probably increase considerably, although special features apply to the Tweed and the Esk which may be of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Home Robertson: As the only representative of the impoverished aristocracy, may I say that we recognise that the Government are making an important concesssion to a needy group? Can the Minister give us some idea of the value of this concession and how many people will take advantage of it? Will they include people such as the Duke of Roxburghe? Can it be that this concession is being made on the same night as the Government resisted an amendment to benefit disabled people?

Mr. Lang: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the number of people involved, but I shall write to him if he wishes to pursue that matter. We estimate that the loss of income to local authorities may be in the region of £1 million to £1·5 million.
Amendment No. 344 increases the level of mandatory rate relief for charities to 80 per cent., in line with the increase proposed for England and Wales.
Amendments Nos. 348 and 349 are part of the same measure, and I shall explain them together. Amendment No. 348 requires a ratepayer to pay his rates bill in full, pending the outcome of his appeal, which is in line with the existing provisions in England and Wales. If the appeal is successful, amendment No. 349 requires the rating authority not only to repay the amount overpaid, but, where that amount is in excess of a prescribed limit, interest on that amount at a rate prescribed by the Secretary of State. The remaining amendments are technical.

Mr. Donald Dewar: It is late and many people are tired, but this is not a routine measure. The Minister has plodded through his notes haplessly with his characteristic elan and spirit, but for all that we should pause and consider what we are about.
I believe—and I speak for many of my hon. Friends—that this is not a routine or ritual occasion, but a serious one. Often in this Chamber there is anger and sometimes it is ritualised. It is often contained and formalised within the rules of the House. Tonight there is a very real edge to anger and discontent, because we are seeing in this thicket of amendments an abuse of process and contempt for the House that is made no more palatable by the fact that English colleagues have been treated equally badly.
We have in this group of amendments and in the others that we will be considering in the very short time available perhaps 70 or more amendments. Some may be technical, but others will raise matters of substance and of acute public interest. There is absolutely no way in which the House can look at them sensibly, in depth or in the sort of detail that the people of Scotland would expect of us when we consider a matter of this importance. The group that

we are discussing deals with a whole range of matters—for example, the principles of valuation, harmonisation, the rating of charitable premises and, as the Minister has said, the concession to the owners of salmon fisheries.
The debate on salmon fisheries alone would take many hours in Committee, perhaps many sittings, yet we have been placed in the position where at the most we have a little more than an hour to consider this group. However, if we were to take that time, it would be at the cost of not debating a whole range of important amendments dealing with, for example, exemptions, joint and several liability, the severely mentally impaired and other matters which I know many hon. Members feel strongly about. It is a disgrace. That word is often used very lightly in political debates, but I use it with its full weight—it is a disgrace in every sense that we have been placed in this position. I am entitled—no, more than entitled, I have a duty—to protest about what is happening.
These amendments have not been debated before in the House. They were not debated in the Committee that considered the Bill, although a number of my colleagues were members of that Committee specifically so that they could deal with any amendments to the Scottish legislation. The amendments were introduced through the back door. They have been squeezed in almost by stealth and they make a mockery of any attempt at proper parliamentary scrutiny. Conducting our business in this manner makes a farce of our proceedings.

Mr. George Foulkes: And of the glorious revolution.

Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend mentions the revolution of 1688. Ministers were in serried ranks upon the golden carpets this morning hearing about our essential liberties, while in the House of Commons we are proceeding in a way that makes a mockery of those very same liberties.
There has been a good deal of debate about the concession on salmon fisheries, and I will take that as an example—not because it is the most important, but because it is reasonably accessible even within this group of amendments. The Minister has said that about £1·5 million a year is being handed out to a very special and limited group of Scotsmen, Englishmen and foreign nationals of every description—a ragbag of humanity, whose only similarity is that they could not possibly be considered as needy.
The explanation for this concession comes in the note on amendments, which says that the amendments were introduced
In fulfilment of undertakings given to Lord Moran and to Lord Kimball
in another place—and I remember Mr. Marcus Kimball as he then was. We do not know the circumstances in which those undertakings were given, but I know that Ministers could not nave any idea of the opinion of the elected representatives of Scotland or other hon. Members, because amendments were not debated in the House, and cannot be properly debated tonight.
We are told
that the amendments are being introduced to provide that salmon fishings which are subject to a fishery rate shall no longer be subject to a local authority rate".

Mr. Ernie Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that Conservative Members do not take this seriously, but is it in order for one hon.


Member to be resting her eyes, and for another to be reading a novel with his feet up during the debate on this important group of amendments?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I always assume that when hon. Members are reading they are preparing themselves for the debate.

Mr. Dewar: Your legendary reputation as an optimist will be reinforced by that assumption, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We are told:
salmon fishings which are subject to a fishery rate shall no longer be subject to a local authority rate, thus avoiding an element of what is arguably double taxation. In Scotland fishery rates are payable to district fishery boards constituted by the proprietors of fishing rights on particular rivers.
Using a voluntary organisation constituted by the proprietors as a reason for exempting hereditaments from local rates is an extremely suspect principle. We shall not have time to probe and discuss this proposal, just as we shall not have time to probe and discuss many more important proposals, to which we might have been able to come, given decent time to work our way through the massive list of Lords amendments.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that he and his colleagues would have had 30 minutes more in which to debate these matters if the Labour party had not insisted on two wholly unnecessary Divisions on the last group of amendments?

Mr. Dewar: That is insulting, and the smirk on the hon. Gentleman's face makes the point. He is suggesting that we could have had 30 minutes more to debate this massive group of amendments if we had not voted against some offensive, unpleasant and unwanted amendments. If that is his idea of how to expedite business in a democracy, I can only say that he is in the right party.
I recognise that many of my hon. Friends, and hon. Members in other parties, will want to speak to these amendments. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is here, so that I can tell him that these proceedings reflect no credit on this Parliament and make it no easier to work the business of the House. They are bad for Parliament and for the democratic process. The House depends on a delicate balance. Its rules are often illogical and sometimes indefensible, but they are workable only when there is trust and Governments recognise the rights of the Opposition and of the electorate in Scotland. If the tacit agreement is to operate, it must not be put under the strain that this charade and farce are putting on our business.
We are concerned not only about this exercise tonight. I cannot go into the details, but I remind the House that this is just another chapter in a sorry story. We have no Select Committee—it was killed off because hon. Members like the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) have neither the commitment nor the sense of duty to serve upon it. They have shown a disgraceful abdication of responsibility.
Even during the negotiations on the Scottish Grand Committee debates, the Government showed no enthusiasm or willingness to go to Edinburgh to debate matters of central importance to Scotland. There was a perverse refusal at the end of the day. Now the Government are bulldozing through this tangled mass of amendments

without giving the House the opportunity to debate them. That is a recipe for confusion, and it will bring down on the Government not only our anger but the anger of anybody who has at heart the interest of good government and the tidy creation of the body of the law in Scotland.
This may be a small point, but it is worth making. I hope that the Minister will at least be able to give an assurance that a new copy of the Scottish Act will be published soon, one that incorporates this extraordinary confusion of changes that we shall rubber-stamp in the next hour or so. It would be ridiculous if those who wanted to check on the law of Scotland could not do so in one Act, and had to chase their way through the labyrinth of English legislation.
The whole exercise is cynical and indefensible. Ministers often lecture us about the law, our duty and the constitution of the kingdom. But they, too, must recognise that they have responsibilities, and in flouting them, as they have tonight, they become the enemies of the very principles that they so often preach. I believe in making systems work. There is no secret in that. I talk unashamedly and as an individual. Opposition Members have had a lively debate about the best way forward. I advise Ministers that bully-boy tactics affect the balance of that argument for me and for many of my colleagues. If Ministers continue in that way, they do so at their peril.
11.15 pm
The amendments do nothing to alter or soften the bleak outline of the poll tax in Scotland. There is no attempt to tackle the basic objections to a regressive tax, with all its built-in administrative problems. Perhaps there is a tacit admission that it would be impossible to tackle the problems. The surgery would be so radical that it would be better to scrap the whole ludicrous exercise. We should like to do that. We know that we cannot do it tonight, but we certainly intend to continue the fight against a form of taxation that is unwanted and unworkable. We shall continue to argue the case for sanity and social justice. We shall do so responsibly and persistently, because that is what we were elected to do. I again warn the Government that if they continue to treat Opposition Members, the House and Scotland in that way, they will inevitably bring about friction and problems that they will regret.

Sir Hector Monro: I do not know what the past 20 minutes have added to the debate. They seemed to consist of a tirade. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) talked about bully-boy tactics. If he had not used such tactics last November, we might well have a Select Committee. [Interruption.] That is what I said. If the hon. Member for Garscadden had not started dictating to Conservative Members about who should be a member of the Committee, we would probably have a Committee. The fact that we do not have one is entirely the fault of the Labour party.
I shall talk for a short while about salmon. I am quite open about the subject. I have no salmon fishing interest to declare, except the rights of my constituents and all others in Scotland who are interested in tourism and developing fishing for the many people who enjoy the most important recreation in the country.

Mr. Maxton: Many Opposition Members find it sickening that the hon. Gentleman, who went through the


Division Lobby to ensure that blind and disabled people pay the poll tax is now supporting fishermen who can well afford to pay every tax that they must pay.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. There are many less well-off people in my constituency, and there are many such people in Scotland, who enjoy fishing at a cost of so much a day. The fact that it will be less expensive in future should be welcomed by all hon. Members, particularly those hon. Members who are interested in one of the largest recreational sports in the country.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Hector Monro: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. His constituency contains the largest stretch of the most important river in Scotland. He should know quite a lot about the subject that I am about to discuss.

Mr. Home Robertson: For that reason, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Hector Monro: No.
I wish to refer to a subject about which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) recently blatantly misinformed the Scottish Grand Committee. He tried to bring in the issue of rating relative to district boards and local authorities. His remarks were totally out of context and were made from great ignorance. It is important to get to the heart of harmonisation of sporting rates throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that, in the not-too-distant future, all sporting rates will be harmonised, including those for shooting, which are more expensive in Scotland than in England. [Interruption.] I shall not hurry if the Opposition natter away the whole evening.
It is important to be clear about what the Government are doing. They are removing one of two forms of rates imposed on all river fishing in Scotland where a district board is in place. Those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to read the debate on the Salmon Bill in the last Parliament will know that hon. Members, especially the Opposition, argued about the importance of high-quality fishing in Scotland to develop the tourist industry and thereby Scotland's economy.
One of the main thrusts of the Bill was to encourage the formation of district boards to improve the fishing, and thereby to encourage more angling, to the benefit of those interested in that recreation. If riparian owners pay high rates to local authorities, it seems unreasonable that they should also pay substantial sums to the district boards to improve the rivers. I am glad that the Government agree that it is important to separate the two issues and that the rates paid to the local authority will be paid only if a district board is not in place. We should do all we can to encourage district boards to promote the sport of fishing, which is so popular throughout Britain and so important to Scotland's economy.
The Opposition think that only wealthy people with titles own fishing areas. My local authority, which has a Liberal majority, owns stretches of river and netting. That authority has always been keen to promote fishing. The income goes to the common good and is dispensed to all local ratepayers. It is wrong to say that all fishing is owned by the wealthy.
Many stretches of Scottish rivers are owned by local fishing associations, which for a few pounds a day or a season let out water for salmon, sea trout or brown trout fishing. That should be encouraged, and the Government's actions are very satisfactory.
I want to come to one point of detail.

Mr. Foulkes: Sit down.

Sir Hector Monro: I shall not hurry just because the hon. Gentleman moans. If he would stick to looking after his constituency instead of everyone else's, we might make some progress.
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the River Tweed, which has always been given special consideration through the Tweed commissioners. As my hon. Friend knows, the River Esk in my constituency is managed by the North West water authority. I want to know whether special arrangements are being made because of the changes in valuation. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, in next year's water legislation, the National Rivers Authority will take account of the River Esk?
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister supports Lords amendment No. 433, because it will be of great value to angling in Scotland. Many thousands of people will benefit from the fact that fishing will be cheaper and of a far higher quality in the years to come.

Mrs. Ray Michie: One might have thought that everything that could have been said about the poll tax legislation had already been said, yet here we are discussing yet another bunch of amendments that has been foisted upon us. We cannot possibly discuss all the amendments, but we realise that the Bill remains fundamentally offensive. It is deeply resented in Scotland and it is alien to our sense of fairness.
It was accepted that the rates system needed to be reformed, but even fair-minded Conservatives feel a deep sense of unease and shame about the Bill. Even those who will benefit and who rightly urged the Government to reform the rates never at any time believed that one unfair tax would be replaced by another that was even more regressive and unfair.
I shall deal with Lords amendment No. 343. It is ironic that certain salmon fishing; are being exempted from the rates only weeks after the Government went for the salmon net fishermen by increasing the weekly close time. We did not want the poll tax, and we certainly do not want the amendments. How will the changes affect the process in Scotland? If the Government are intent on sticking to their timetable, and to the implementation date of April 1989, the changes are coming far too late. I would suggest that the Government give up that timetable. It is all very well their introducing legislation for England and Wales, but the Scottish authorities have only nine months' preparation time left. Surely the sensible thing to do now would be at least to delay the implementation of the poll tax.
To be introducing the amendments at this late stage and allowing less than two hours debate is disgraceful. Worse still, we are debating them late at night, and at the tail end of the debate—as usual with matters concerning Scotland. That shows once again the Government's disregard for the democratic rights of the Scottish nation and its people.
The Government have behaved like a demented octopus with its tentacles flailing uncontrolled in all directions and hitting out at all in sight. They have gone


for the old, the young and the less well-off. They have gone for local government, for the crofters and the Churches. They have ignored the wishes of the people of Scotland and treated them with contempt.
The Government have demeaned not only themselves but the House. The Scottish people will never again believe that justice can emanate from here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Allan Stewart. [Interruption.]

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am sorry that hon. Members are creating such a din; I have spoken once, on the previous group of amendments, for one minute, and I do not propose to speak for more than two or three minutes on these amendments.
First, I shall respond to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). In my constituency there is massive support for the community charge legislation and I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not be tempted by the hon. Lady's invitation to delay its implementation. The legislation is on schedule, and Opposition Members' campaigns of non-registration and delay have failed completely. That is why they are making such a din. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said that there was a lack of control by the Government. I should have thought that the events of this evening showed, from an early stage, that the Opposition were totally out of control of their tactics on the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) spoke with his customary authority and expertise about the amendment relating to salmon fishings, which perhaps is the most important in this group. I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions concerning other amendments in the same group.
11.30 pm
First, will my hon. Friend say a few words about amendment No. 351, which deals with the change in the method of calculating the base month for the retail price index formula? I am not sure that I quite understand it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sure that Opposition Members do not understand it. In any event, I do not wholly understand what amendment No. 351 will mean in practice.
Secondly, I should like my hon. Friend to comment on amendments Nos. 342 and 344. My understanding is that amendment No. 342 continues the total exemption from rates of religious bodies, such as Churches. I do not want to widen the debate, but I am not sure whether one ought in principle wholly to exclude religious bodies from the rating system. However, my understanding is that that is what amendment No. 342 achieves.
Amendment No. 344 increases the remission of rates payable from charities and similar organisations from one half to 80 per cent. of the rates bill that would otherwise be payable. If that is so, it will benefit considerably a very large number of charities and similar organisations. Can my hon. Friend quantify the financial consequences for charities in Scotland—my understanding is that amendment No. 344 is limited to Scotland—of that concession, which will be widely welcomed? It will be helpful if my hon. Friend can quantify the positive effects of that considerable concession to charities and other bodies.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I suppose that we should all be grateful to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) for proving categorically that an association with fish does not lead to brains.
I make no apology for dwelling on one aspect of these amendments. My position on the poll tax is reasonably well known. I believe that it is insidious and vicious, and there is no category of people against whom it is more insidious and vicious than the people of rural Scotland. Therefore, it becomes doubly insulting and offensive that at the very last moment in the House of Lords, without there being any debate in this House, any public notice, any intimation from the scribblers of the Scottish Information Office, or any attempt to stimulate public discussion on this matter, a clause has been slipped into the legislation giving a £1·5 million handout to the owners of Scottish rod salmon fishings. It has nothing to do with the poll tax. By the backdoor of the English and Welsh poll tax legislation, a small number of salmon rod proprietors in Scotland will be given this handout.
Lord Moran and Lord Kimball have been lobbying in the House of Lords for another concession. The Minister might tell us whether that concession will be slipped in as well. They are demanding yet another pot of gold for their vested interest—the abolition of shooting rates in Scotland. The Minister might care to tell us now whether that will be slipped in so that we do not have to read about it in a few days' time in the House of Lords Hansard.
The note on the amendment—this is the untruth that has to be nailed—says that the reason for giving the fishing proprietors of Scotland £1·5 million is that they are
arguably subject to double taxation.
That is nonsense. They pay a levy to district salmon fisheries boards. Those boards have a curious quasi-public status. However, the dominant force since the Salmon Act 1986 has to be the salmon proprietors themselves. To all intents and purposes, it is their private association. Because of a law—we cannot go into that tonight, but it should be swept away in any democratic society—the salmon fisheries boards are entitled to hire their own private police forces. The levies to the boards pay for those police forces. They are not used to construct roads or provide local authority services. They have nothing to do with local authority rates. There is no double taxation. One might as well say that, because hoteliers pay levies to their local hotel associations, they should be exempt from non-domestic rates. That is the exact parallel.
In the buffoonery of the hon. Member for Dumfries we are told that it is all about tourism. It has nothing to do with tourism. There is a salmon enterprise, about which I know a little, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). It is the syndicate of Grimersta estate and it has 20 members, including several of the jokers who turned up to vote against an ability-to-pay principle being introduced into the poll tax. Perhaps they are not such jokers; perhaps they are the bright lads. The Scottish peers who turned up to vote for that legislation receive a minimum £2,000 a head direct gain under the poll tax and, in addition, they are to get this little bonus thrown in.
That syndicate is not interested in tourism. Not one extra tourist comes to Scotland because of it. Yet if this provision had been in existence in the present financial year the members of the syndicate would have made a saving of £5,500. That would have been a reduction in income to the Western Isles council. I spoke to the assessor


in the Highland region today. He said that rateable values of £230,000 will be wiped out by the amendment. That is roughly £160,000 in the Highland region that will not be paid in rates on salmon fishing but will be paid in rates from somewhere else. The same is true in Strathclyde, because there is plenty of salmon fishing in Argyll.
Who will compensate for the fact that those people will be given £1·5 million? It will be the poor, the disabled and all the categories of people who are being penalised under the poll tax. The Government have the effrontery to introduce an amendment that gives a £1·5 million handout to the salmon rod proprietors of Scotland. It is a disgrace with which people will be able to identify.
The people of urban Scotland, as well as the people of rural Scotland, know that the owners of those salmon fishings do not attract tourists to Scotland, but are the biggest deterrent to tourism in Scotland. They close off vast acreages of Scotland as their own private playgrounds, and for that service to the nation they will be given this additional handout. The people of urban Scotland know that the curse of rural Scotland is landlordism, yet at the same time——

Mr. Harris: rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Wilson: At the same time as crofters are losing their 50 per cent. de-rating under the legislation and at the same time as the people living in the remotest corners of my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) are losing the rating advantage which reflected the remoteness of their homes and the services with which they are provided, the salmon rod proprietors of Scotland are being given another £1·5 million. That transfer of wealth is as comprehensible to those inner cities of Scotland as it is in the rural areas.
As I said in the Scottish Grand Committee—I advise the hon. Member for Dumfries that every word that I said in the Scottish Grand Committee has been proven true—in the great swathe of the highlands and islands, the Tories have been eradicated along with wolves and TB. Part of the reason is this kind of special pleading and offerings to the landowners of Scotland. That is part of the reason why there is no way back for them.
I finish on this note. When it suits them—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) wishes to intervene, I shall be delighted to give way to him.

Mr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) for giving way. He knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) cannot intervene, so I shall ask the question that he and every Conservative Member is dying to ask. In his strictures on landlords and those who own the fishing rights and who will get, according to the hon. Gentleman, this great handout, does the hon. Gentleman include his hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)? If so, has the hon. Member for East Lothian told him whether he will give the money back?

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can assist me. We have heard the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) say from a sedentary position that he cannot intervene in the debate.

Can you keep him in order and restrain him from intervening in the debate, especially from a sedentary position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get on with the debate. Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member for Crawley does not bother me at all. When I hear him, I recall the old maxim, "All you expect from a pig is a grunt."
I shall conclude my remarks because I have no wish to turn the debate into a comedy show about Tory Members. The amendment is an affront to the people of urban and rural Scotland. In a real sense, it sums up what the poll tax is about. It is about taking away from those who have least and giving to the most privileged groups in society. It is perhaps not inappropriate that we finish these debates on such a symbolic note.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I always listen to the speeches made by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) with a great deal of sympathy—not with understanding and certainly not with agreement—because I understand that when a 16-year-old goes to New St. Andrew's house in Edinburgh for a job, the first test that that youngster is set is, "See if you can write a speech for Allan Stewart." The irony is that if the hon. Gentleman can read the speech, the youngster is regarded as being below the level of intelligence required for the Civil Service, and he does not get a job. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, yet again it is clear that some other youngster's career has bitten the dust.
11.45 pm
I only wish that the Strangers Gallery had been packed with my constituents to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H:. Monro). I wish that old-age pensioners, the disabled and the blind, and others who will be clobbered by the poll tax. had been present to hear the hon. Gentleman pleading the case for those who have the privilege of owning the salmon rod fisheries. He laid open the real concept of the proposed legislation. When the Bill was introduced, we were told that those who use services will contribute to the cost of providing them. That does not apply to those who own the salmon rod fisheries. They will enjoy refunds. They will get back the money.
The hon. Member for Dumfries has pleaded for those who own shoots as well. That contrasts starkly with a decision that was taken earlier this evening, which the hon. Gentleman supported. It was supported also by the hon. Member for Eastwood. There will be no option for those on income support who are unable to pay poll tax, or who refuse to do so. They will not be asked for their agreement to have poll tax deducted from their benefit. For those on the lowest level of income, poll tax will be deducted from their benefit. They will not even be asked whether that money can be taken from them.
The hon. Member for Eastwood shakes his head. He should understand that there will be a few in his constituency who will suffer that form of deduction. I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall make damned sure that those of his constituents who are on income support and who have their benefit abated because of poll tax will learn about his activities this evening.
I can understand that complaints have been made about the fact that we have divided the House on this issue. The hon. Member for Eastwood and others wanted to hide


behind an absence of Divisions. We ensured that we divided the House because we wanted to expose the hon. Members for Eastwood and for Dumfries, who are frightened to death. We wanted to drive them out of their holes and place their names on the record, and we succeeded. We shall ensure that the record is read the length and breadth of Scotland, especially in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Dumfries and for Eastwood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has handed me a note, which I shall read out. I take strong exception to its terms. My hon. Friend was elected to this place at the last general election, and he is young and inexperienced. He is complaining bitterly to me, however, that I am being too hard on the hon. Member for Eastwood. My hon. Friend owes his seat to Michael Ancram, who was such an outstanding communicator on the poll tax. He was such a great communicator that the people of Edinburgh, South threw him out. My hon. Friend is here as a result of that. I will speak privately to my hon. Friend after the debate, but I must tell him in public that he needs a bit more of a cutting edge to him.
Having witnessed the conduct of the hon. Members for Dumfries and for Eastwood, it was right and proper for my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and Opposition Back Benchers to express anger at the way in which the Scottish people are being treated with contempt by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden was right to express his anger about the way in which the House is being treated and the number of amendments that have been introduced at this late stage. He was wrong to express surprise about that, because the Government have treated the Scottish people with contempt since 1979. The Scottish people and the House of Commons do not mean anything to the Government. Had it not been for the restraint shown by Opposition Members, there would have been much trouble in the House. We have shown considerable restraint, but it has been taxed to its maximum. Tonight it has been taxed to its limit. The people of Scotland are of prime importance to Opposition Members.

Mr. McKelvey: All Opposition Members wish that they had had an opportunity to express their anger and frustration. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) is frustrated almost to the point of breaking, but will he join me and other Labour Members in not paying this tax?

Mr. Ewing: Like my hon. Friends, I am always open and honest. If any of my constituents send me a letter asking whether I will pay the poll tax, I will answer that I will. That must not be misinterpreted as my agreeing with what the Government are doing to the people of Scotland. Yes, I will pay the poll tax. I have always made my position perfectly clear to constituents who have written to me about this issue. It is for every individual to take his own decision whether to pay. I tell my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and Livingston (Mr. Cook) that I will not criticise anybody who says that they

will not pay the poll tax. There is no possibility of my joining any campaign of condemnation of anyone who refuses to pay the poll tax.
Tonight, the Government have ensured that anyone receiving income support or state benefit will not have the same choice as I or my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West and I can choose whether to pay the poll tax. Nobody on state benefit can choose whether to pay it.

Mr. James Wallace: rose——

Mr. Ewing: I am in danger of not speaking to the amendments, but I shall after I have given way to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman said that he will pay the poll tax; I agree with him, and I will also pay it. But does he accept that the arguments in favour of obeying the law become much more difficult to sustain when the Government ride roughshod over parliamentary democracy and limit time to deal with these important matters?

Mr. Ewing: I have always found that those who mouth platitudes about obeying the law are the biggest law-breakers. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State have put strains and stresses on the people of Scotland, and it is understandable that some people will adopt a position different from mine. That is why I will not join a campaign of condemnation.
My main point remains valid, and I shall repeat it because it should be heard. Vast groups of people in Scotland will not have the choice that we have of whether to pay. All on state benefits will pay the poll tax, whether they want to or not.
I come now to the amendments. The hon. Member for Eastwood compared the present 50 per cent. mandatory rebate for charities with a possible 80 per cent. rebate under this legislation. With that innocent air that he acquired during his time in the Scottish Office—which saw him out of its doors before his backside was on the seat—he asked the Minister of State for an assessment. I shall give him one: in almost the whole of Scotland—if not all of it—these charities enjoy the 50 per cent. mandatory relief, plus another 50 per cent. discretionary relief. So they pay no rates at all. Under this legislation and the amendments to it, they will pay the first 20 per cent. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, so the Minister need not answer it.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member will be able to return to his fine textual examination of the amendments in a second.
The proceedings tonight are undemocratic and farcical, and the Scottish National party would have liked to be able to say that in the course of them, especially as the non-payment campaign in Scotland is growing by the minute.

Mr. Ewing: I am not sure that it is. It is certainly not growing in east Angus or Perth and Kinross—and I see no evidence of it growing in Falkirk. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point on behalf of his party. It is entitled to be heard, the same as the rest of us. The hon. Gentleman will have other opportunities to discuss this matter.
Another amendment that the Minister mentioned almost in passing related to using the contractor's


principle in assessing industry in Scotland for rating and valuation. The Minister is harmonising the systems of Scotland and England, which are different now. The Minister thinks that the contractor's principle has never been heard of. He is harmonising a bad system. Scottish industry, especially the chemical industry, wants to be rid of the contractor's principle in rating and valuation. Instead of harmonising it, we should get rid of it. But the Minister has no intention of doing that. He is harmonising a bad practice. Let no one think for a moment that he is doing industry in Scotland any favours. The amendments do nothing at all in favour of Scottish industry. Nobody will benefit from them except, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the owners of the salmon rod fisheries.

Mr. Home Robertson: People like me will benefit.

Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is saying that he is all right. He can speak for himself. If all the owners of the salmon rod fisheries take the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian, they will vote Labour. I guarantee Conservative Members that whatever benefits——

It being Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 201.

Division No. 437]
[12.00


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Alexander, Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chope, Christopher


Amos, Alan
Churchill, Mr


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Ashby, David
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Cran, James


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bendall, Vivian
Curry, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Day, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Devlin, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Dicks, Terry


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Durant, Tony


Bowis, John
Dykes, Hugh


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Emery, Sir Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brazier, Julian
Evennett, David


Bright, Graham
Fallon, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Farr, Sir John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Favell, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Buck, Sir Antony
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Burt, Alistair
Fishburn, John Dudley


Butcher, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Butler, Chris
Forman, Nigel


Butterfill, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Carrington, Matthew
Fox, Sir Marcus


Cash, William
Franks, Cecil





Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


French, Douglas
Madel, David


Fry, Peter
Major, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Gardiner, George
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Maples, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marlow, Tony


Gorst, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gow, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gregory, Conal
Mellor, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miller, Sir Hal


Grist, Ian
Mills, Iain


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hannam, John
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Hawkins, Christopher
Neale, Gerrard


Hayes, Jerry
Nelson, Anthony


Hayward, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heddle, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hind, Kenneth
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Holt, Richard
Page, Richard


Howard, Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, John


Jack, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Jackson, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Janman, Tim
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Key, Robert
Rost, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rowe, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knowles, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Latham, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lilley, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Speed, Keith


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCrindle, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stanley, Rt Hon John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)






Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Walden, George


Sumberg, David
Waller, Gary


Summerson, Hugo
Ward, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Watts, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whitney, Ray


Thorne, Neil
Widdecombe, Ann


Thornton, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Thurnham, Peter
Wilshire, David


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Woodcock, Mike


Tredinnick, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trippier, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Twinn, Dr Ian



Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Waddington, Rt Hon David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Duffy, A. E. P.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Allen, Graham
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fatchett, Derek


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Faulds, Andrew


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barron, Kevin
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Battle, John
Fisher, Mark


Beckett, Margaret
Flannery, Martin


Beith, A. J.
Flynn, Paul


Bell, Stuart
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Foster, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Foulkes, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, John


Blair, Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Boateng, Paul
Galbraith, Sam


Boyes, Roland
Galloway, George


Bradley, Keith
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
George, Bruce


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Buchan, Norman
Golding, Mrs Llin


Buckley, George J.
Gould, Bryan


Caborn, Richard
Graham, Thomas


Callaghan, Jim
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Canavan, Dennis
Grocott, Bruce


Cartwright, John
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Haynes, Frank


Clay, Bob
Henderson, Doug


Clelland, David
Hinchliffe, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cohen, Harry
Holland, Stuart


Coleman, Donald
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Ingram, Adam


Darling, Alistair
Janner, Greville


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
John, Brynmor


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dewar, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dixon, Don
Kirkwood, Archy


Dobson, Frank
Lambie, David


Doran, Frank
Lamond, James


Douglas, Dick
Leighton, Ron





Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Radice, Giles


Litherland, Robert
Redmond, Martin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Reid, Dr John


Loyden, Eddie
Richardson, Jo


McAllion, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


McAvoy, Thomas
Robertson, George


McCartney, Ian
Robinson, Geoffrey


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Rogers, Allan


McKelvey, William
Rooker, Jeff


McLeish, Henry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McNamara, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


McTaggart, Bob
Ruddock, Joan


McWilliam, John
Salmond, Alex


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Maginnis, Ken
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marek, Dr John
Short, Clare


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Meacher, Michael
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Michael, Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Strang, Gavin


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Turner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Vaz, Keith


Morgan, Rhodri
Wall, Pat


Morley, Elliott
Wallace, James


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Walley, Joan


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Nellist, Dave
Wilson, Brian


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


O'Neill, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Parry, Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Patchett, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter L.



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Noes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.


Primarolo, Dawn



Quin, Ms Joyce

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 341 accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment: No. 389, in page 147, line 28, at end insert—

".—(1) Section 24 of that Act (duty to provide for rebates from community charges) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (a)—
(i) for the words "local authorities" there shall be substituted the words "levying authorities"; and
(ii) for the words from "community charges" to "this Act)" there shall be substituted the words "personal community charges and (except in relation to residence in premises which are special designated premises for the purposes of section 11(4B) of this Act) collective community charge contributions".

(3) In paragraph (b) for the words "local authority in respect of each year" there shall be substituted the words "levying authority".

(4) That section as so amended shall be subsection (1) and there shall be added the following subsection—

"(2) This section shall have effect only in respect of the financial year 1989–90."."

Read a Second time.

Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 8, leave out


'(except in relation to residence in premises which are special designated premises for the purposes of section 1 1(4B) of this Act)'.

Lords amendment No. 389, as amended, agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment No. 390 disagreed to.

Lords amendments: Nos. 342 to 344, 347, 351, 355, 360, 361, 364, 366 to 369, 392, 393, 396,405,407,408, 189, 190, 192, 198, 202, 203, 410, 413 and 415 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments: Nos. 345, 346, 348 to 350, 352 to 354, 356 to 359, 362, 363, 365, 370 to 388, 391, 394, 395, 397 to 404,406, 186 to 188, 191, 193 to 197, 199 to 201, 204, 205, 409, 411, 412, 414 and 206 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 389 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Motion made, and Question put,

That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 22, 171, 300, 302 to 304 and 390 to the Bill:

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 22.

Division No. 438]
[12.17 am


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alexander, Richard
Cope, Rt Hon John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Couchman, James


Amos, Alan
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Curry, David


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkins, Robert
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, David
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Batiste, Spencer
Dover, Den


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Bob


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dykes, Hugh


Bevan, David Gilroy
Emery, Sir Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Evennett, David


Boswell, Tim
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Farr, Sir John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Favell, Tony


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowis, John
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fishburn, Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Forth, Eric


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Browne, John (Winchester)
Franks, Cecil


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Freeman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
French, Douglas


Butcher, John
Fry, Peter


Butler, Chris
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Gardiner, George


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cash, William
Gorst, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gow, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Chope, Christopher
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Churchill, Mr
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gregory, Conal


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Grist, Ian


Colvin, Michael
Ground, Patrick


Conway, Derek
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)





Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Christopher
Paice, James


Hayes, Jerry
Patnick, Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Heddle, John
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hind, Kenneth
Portillo, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Powell, William (Corby)


Holt, Richard
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howard, Michael
Redwood, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hunter, Andrew
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowe, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Janman, Tim
Ryder, Richard


Jessel, Toby
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knowles, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Speed, Keith


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lawrence, Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stern, Michael


Lightbown, David
Stevens, Lewis


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Sumberg, David


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Summerson, Hugo


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maclean, David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Madel, David
Thorne, Neil


Major, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Malcolm


Malins, Humfrey
Thurnham, Peter


Mans, Keith
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maples, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B heath)


Marland, Paul
Tracey, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tredinnick, David


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Trippier, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maude, Hon Francis
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Viggers, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mellor, David
Waldegrave, Hon William


Miller, Sir Hal
Walden, George


Mills, Iain
Ward, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Watts, John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Wells, Bowen


Monro, Sir Hector
Wheeler, John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Widdecombe, Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wilshire, David


Neale, Gerrard
Wolfson, Mark


Nelson, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Neubert, Michael
Woodcock, Mike


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Yeo, Tim






Young, Sir George (Acton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.




NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lamond, James


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
McWilliam, John


Beith, A. J.
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Canavan, Dennis
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cohen, Harry
Parry, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Salmond, Alex


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas, Dick



Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. James Wallace.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 22, 171, 300, 302 to 304 and 390.
That Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Michael Howard, Mr. Peter Lloyd, Mr. William O'Brien and Mr. Jeff Rooker be members of the Committee.
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Local Authority Publicity

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move,
That the draft Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity, which was laid before this House on 30th June 1988, be approved.
Section 4 of the Local Government Act 1986 provides for the Secretary of State to issue codes of recommended practice as regards the content, style, distribution and cost of local authority publicity and such other related matters as he thinks appropriate. Local authorities are required by section 4, as amended by section 27 of the Local Government Act 1988, to have regard to the provisions of any such code in coming to any decision on publicity.
The 1986 Act requires that before issuing a code the Secretary of State shall consult local authority associations and any local authority with which consultation appears desirable. It provides also that a draft of the code shall be laid before each House of Parliament for approval.
Full and extensive consultation has taken place over the past two years with the local authority associations and a number of other bodies concerned. Those consultations, which have included meetings between Ministers and members of associations, have considered in detail a succession of drafts of the code. This history of consultation has demonstrated the extent to which we have endeavoured to take local authorities with us on the drafting of the code and our willingness, where appropriate, to make amendments designed to allay their concerns.

Mr. Simon Hughes: After all the consultations, have any of the local authority associations been persuaded that the code should exist at all?

Mr. Chope: The local authority associations have had relatively few quibbles about the contents of the code in its latest draft, but it is right to say that local authorities wish to carry on spending money on publicity without any restraint. That is a regrettable state of affairs.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that the associations of local authorities represent all parties? It is the united view of all parties in local government that there should be no code from the Government, and that they should be allowed to keep their own house in order, without the Government, whether Conservative, Labour, Liberal or other party, yet again interfering.

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make a speech during the debate if he wants to do so. Many people in local government consider that, because of the irresponsible actions of a relatively small minority of councils, we must take some action against excesses. The Government are determined to ensure that there is responsible behaviour in local government in the same way as we have for national government with a code of recommended practice for publicity.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister brings national government into the debate. What does local government think about the excesses of Mr. Ingham and his cohort of 140 press officers?

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to deploy his arguments later. There is no doubt that there has been a lot of abuse of budgets, especially by some Labour-controlled local authorities.

Mr. Barry Field: My hon. Friend will recall that when the clause was amended in Committee, I made representations to him about the subsidy that a number of Left-wing authorities were providing for literature. They were subsidising a monopoly which favoured the co-operative movement. The London Labour party receives a substantial subsidy every year from the co-operative movement. There is no mention in the code of conduct of the practices to which I drew my hon. Friend's attention. Unlike the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I believe that the representations have by no means been unanimously against the code. There is considerable concern about these practices, and this code does nothing to prevent them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. That is enough of an intervention.

Mr. Chope: The fact that my hon. Friend thinks that the code does not go far enough. and some Opposition Members believe that it goes too far, is perhaps a sign that we have got it about right.

Mr. Bill Michie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chope: I shall give way once more. Having regard to the hour, it is only fair that I should be reasonably brief so that others can participate if they wish, and if they do not we can all go home.

Mr. Michie: Why do the Government always talk about the cost of political publicity, when at any time of the day I can watch television publicity on the privatisation of the steel industry, the sale of council houses and so on, and no one questions it? Why should local authorities not defend their services and tell the people exactly what is happening?

Mr. Chope: The Government lay down conventions on publicity and advertising for themselves. Local authorities should comply with similar conventions on their publicity and advertising. That is all we are asking. We are being perfectly reasonable about it.
The introduction to the code explains its status and scope. I draw particular attention to paragraph 5. This explains that the code is concerned, not with the statutory ban on party political publicity, but rather with all publicity that local authorities are empowered to issue. It remains self-evident that observance of the principles of good practice set out in the code would ensure that a local authority did not contravene that prohibition.
The code is not a series of rules and regulations to which local authorities must adhere in all cases. On the contrary, the code sets out principles of good practice to act as a benchmark against which authorities must judge their publicity proposals. In each case they will need to consider whether the publicity that they propose to issue is in keeping with the principles set out in the code. If it is not, they will need to consider whether special circumstances exist which justify departure from the code.
The introduction to the code also acknowledges the vital role that local authority publicity has to play in the

interests of ensuring local accountability. It welcomes good, effective publicity, aimed at improving public awareness of a council's activities. It explains that the purpose of the code is to set out principles of good practice which will ensure that local authority publicity decisions are properly made.
I draw attention to paragraph 8 in the introduction to the code. This paragraph, together with paragraph 43, explains that the code will not affect the ability of local authorities to assist charities and voluntary organisations which need to issue publicity as part of their task. Local authorities are, however, called upon, in giving such assistance, to take into account the principles contained in the code. To the extent appropriate, local authorities should incorporate the relevant principles in any published guidance for applicants for grants, and make observance of that guidance a condition of the grant. Where appropriate, local authorities should monitor the observance of the guidance. The extent to which any such monitoring is necessary must remain a matter for the local authority concerned, but, in the Government's view, prior vetting of all publicity by assisted voluntary organisations would be unnecessary.
The main body of the code is divided into nine sections. They deal with the following: the subject matter of local authority publicity; its cost, content, style and dissemination; particular considerations to be taken into account with general advertising and recruitment advertising; publicity about members of the authority; the timing of publicity and assistance given to others for publicity.
I shall not take up the time of the House by giving a detailed summary of each of those sections. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members who are interested will have familiarised themselves with them. However, some provisions merit particular mention, because history has proved that some authorities—I stress "some"—have failed to observe the accepted conventions which traditionally have governed publicity issued at public expense.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Give us examples.

Mr. Chope: I am sure that we shall hear some examples——

Mr. Rooker: Give us some examples.

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman must wait for examples. He will probably hear plenty during the debate.
No one can deny the onslaught of political propaganda in some areas. I have in mind material such as publicity whose cost is wholly disproportionate to its purpose and which benefits relatively few people. That is dealt with in paragraphs 6 and 10 of the draft code.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I have a particular problem in one of the local authorities in my constituency, Middlesbrough borough council. Every month it brings out a little magazine called 'Middlesbrough News". This month, the first two pages of "Middlesbrough News" carry a long article and a glamorous photograph of the Labour leader of the council holding a huge petition against the poll tax which he proposes to take to No. 10 Downing street. The article says that Middlesbrough borough council is opposed to the introduction of the poll tax for 95 reasons. It is the most blatant piece of political propaganda. How will the code——

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is this a speech or an intervention?

Mr. Devlin: It is an intervention, and the point of it is to ask how the code of practice will affect such publications.

Mr. Chope: I refer my hon. Friend to paragraphs 11 to 19 of the code, which set out matters relating to style and content. Paragraph 13, in particular, deals with publicity being used to comment on or respond to the policies and proposals of the Government. I hope that a debate will develop in different local authorities, and that if authorities put forward proposals that contravene the code they will be hauled over the coals locally and be given adverse publicity because they have behaved unreasonably. That is exactly what would happen to the Government if they were in breach of their conventions on publicity.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: How will the code stop Sheffield issuing a newspaper called the "City of Sheffield News" at a cost of £100,000 to the ratepayers? In effect, it is a broadsheet issued on behalf of the Labour party and consists of articles knocking the Government. How will the code stop that?

Mr. Chope: The code will not stop all council newspapers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Some of my hon. Friends are disappointed about that. In parts of the country there are some quite good, informative, factual, objective council newspapers, many of which are produced by Conservative-controlled authorities. I know what my hon. Friend has to put up with in Sheffield, and I hope that Sheffield city council, like other city councils, will comply with the code of practice.

Mr. Bill Michie: Never.

Mr. Chope: The code deals with publicity on political or otherwise sensitive matters, which is highly subjective, often inaccurate and relies on slogans to make its point. A partisan political attack on the views of others is not an adequate means of disseminating information; nor is it a justifiable use of ratepayers' money.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: In view of the comment from a sedentary position of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) that he will never obey this code of practice in Sheffield, will my hon. Friend say whether a council that disregards this guidance will be liable to surcharge?

Mr. Chope: It will be for the district auditor to take into account this code and whether the council decides either to comply with or to be in breach of it. The mere fact that a council does not comply with every part of the code will not automatically result in a surcharge. That will depend on whether it behaves reasonably and approaches the matter in a sensible way.

Mr. Bill Michie: Sheffield city council and other local authorities have always abided by the law.

Mr. Patnick: Rubbish!

Mr. Michie: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) says, "Rubbish!" I am saying that if there is a bad law, one challenges it. If one does not do so, there is dictatorship.

Mr. Chope: Sheffield city council is notorious for over-spending and irresponsibility. Often, it has not been slow to pull the wool over the eyes of its local citizenry by presenting biased comments, particularly in relation to Government legislation. It has tried desperately to get around Government legislation, particularly that relating to compulsory competitive tendering, and so on.

Mr. Corbyn: rose——

Mr. Chope: I am answering the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). I shall give way to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in a moment.
The hon. Member for Heeley may or may not be influential in Sheffield city council. I suggest that he, as a Member of the House, ought to impress on his local council the desirability of complying with the law.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister move away from his obsession with attacking councils that are trying to maintain a decent level of service for the people whom they were elected to represent, and turn his attention to Westminster city council and its gift of several million pounds to property developers in London, and examine the case for bringing surcharges and criminal charges against Westminster officers and councillors for their sale of cemeteries?

Mr. Chope: That matter has precious little to do with the subject of this debate. I speak from recollection, but I believe that Islington's district auditor had much to say about the behaviour of certain Islington councillors. It is right to say that district auditors do not hold party political views, but act on behalf of ratepayers in any district council area, be it under Conservative or Labour control.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister note that the Islington district auditor is pursuing the councillors there because they were against rate capping and were trying to protect services for the people of Islington? There is no suggestion of any Islington councillors selling public property at low prices to property speculators. In Westminster, we are having to deal with a wholly different form of corruption in local government. That is what the Minister should be examining—not pursuing councillors who are attempting to protect services for the poorest people in many of the poorest boroughs of this country.

Mr. Chope: It is typical of the hon. Gentleman that he wants one law for his friends in Islington and a different law for everybody else. Publicity distributed unsolicited to vulnerable sections of the community and containing inaccurate and scaremongering claims and allegations—for example, on the social services reforms—is covered by paragraph 22 of the draft code.
Taken together, the principle of good practice set out in the code provides an essential and comprehensive yardstick against which local authorities should judge their publicity proposals. We intend that as soon as parliamentary approval is forthcoming the code will be brought into effect by issuing it under cover of a circular to local authorities.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I have read carefully through the code of recommended practice, but I cannot find anywhere guidance in respect of town meetings. Last Thursday, I and the hon. Member for Lewisham,


Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) addressed a town meeting in Lewisham on the subject of the community charge. Part of the way through, the Labour mayor, who was chairing the meeting, refused me permission to reply to points put by the hon. Member for Deptford. I was on the platform at the invitation of the Conservative group. The meeting then broke up in disorder. Is it intended that town meetings, if they are to be held, should be held on a balanced basis, with a neutral chairman, and not at the expense of ratepayers' money as Labour party meetings?

Mr. Chope: The code does not deal with the point made by my hon. Friend. As he will know, the wider issue of the conduct of local authorities was looked into by the Widdicombe committee. The Widdicombe report has been issued and the Government will shortly make their response to it. The point made by my hon. Friend is just another example of the irresponsible and biased way in which some Labour councillors behave.
So that some of my hon. Friends will have an opportunity to give the House some examples of the abuses that have been taking place, I shall stop now and commend the code to the House.

Mr. William O'Brien: The hour may be late but the business is important because the code of recommended practice submitted by the Minister prompts some key points that should be considered. The code will apply to publicity by local authorities which is legal but which is not appropriate or desirable in the view of the Ministers. Therefore, we are again giving additional powers to the Ministers if they feel that local authorities are not acting in accordance with the code.
The Minister said that he is prepared to allow others to submit examples but he has failed to produce a single example of publicity that the code will affect and has dismissed examples given by others.

Mr. Chope: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with what has happened recently. The latest edition of Labour Party News, the official Labour party publication mailed to all members of the party, includes an advertisement for Manchester city council which says that the council is countering the effects of mass unemployment and working to develop a common front on issues such as the job training scheme. The cost of that half page advertisement, according to the published rates of Labour Party News, would be £500 plus £75 value added tax. That is the sort of subsidy going from the ratepayers to the Labour party which the code will outlaw.

Mr. O'Brien: That is not covered by the code. That advertisement could be put in any newspaper and it would be legal. What is wrong with advertising in a circular that goes around the areas? The Minister is clutching at straws because of the challenge that has been thrown out.

Mr. Batiste: rose——

Mr. O'Brien: I want to draw attention to the fact that the draft code has been rewritten six times because the Conservative party has not had an opportunity to get the matter right. It has taken six attempts to bring the code before the House.

Mr. Batiste: rose——

Mr. O'Brien: The code is jointly opposed by all local authority associations, irrespective of party. The Government have chosen to ignore a voluntary code agreed by local government as a whole, although the Minister has suggested that there is a voluntary code for central Government. Why can there not be a voluntary code for local government? That is one of the questions that the Minister has to address.
In seeking parliamentary approval for the draft code of practice the Government are attempting to complete the ring of restrictions placed on local authorities and their publicity since the Widdicombe report in 1985. Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986, which is now strengthened by the Local Government Act 1988, outlaws "political publicity" on what local authority associations believe to be an excessively broad definition of what constitutes political publicity. Section 3 places restrictions on local authorities' use of existing powers to issue publicity. In writing into statute a code of practice on
the content, style, distribution and cost of local authority publicity,
the Government rejected Widdicombe's recommendation that such matters should be left to self-regulation by local government for local government.
The Minister should tell us why the Government have rejected Widdicombe's recommendation that local authorities should be self-regulating. The Widdicom.be report stated:
We believe that tone and presentation is important, but it would undoubtedly be best if it were the subject of self-regulation,
which is what the Minister has suggested should apply for central Government. The report also stated:
it would be best, in our view, if this could be done by self-regulation within local government, or through the agency of the local authority Associations".
All the local authority associations—the Association of' Metropolitan Authorities; the Association of County Councils; the Association of District Councils; the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities—have worked together on this issue from the start. They have shown that there is unanimity in local government about the principle of self-regulation and that they can produce and get widespread agreement for a voluntary code of practice.

Mr. Patnick: rose——

Mr. Batiste: rose——

Mr. O'Brien: A draft of the voluntary code of practice was produced and received widespread approval and endorsement from many authorities and from the professional. bodies involved. Authorities expressing support in principle for the voluntary code included the full spectrum of political views and all types of local authorities, from Liverpool to the Corporation of the City of London. There was a wide area of agreement on the practice of self-regulation.
In passing the Local Government Act 1988, Parliament has now decided that the code should be statutory. There has been a long history of discussions at official and ministerial level about the code of practice, and between the local authority associations, the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office. The Minister has referred to the consultations that have taken place. There have been three meetings on the code of


practice with the Ministers responsible for local government. On each occasion—this is a measure of the importance which the Department of the Environment has attached to those meetings—different Ministers attended. In other words, there was no consistency from the Department of the Environment in the meetings that it held with the local authority association.

Mr. Patnick: rose——

Mr. O'Brien: Following the last meeting on 8 June, only two changes of substance have been made to the draft code that was published in November 1987.
The further restrictions on local authority publicity should be contrasted with the growth in scale and degree of controversy of much central Government advertising.

Mr. Patnick: rose——

Mr. O'Brien: There are those who think—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way]—that that has strayed well beyond the guidelines of the Cabinet Office—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to hear what is being said. There is too much noise from both sides of the House. [Interruption.] Order. I said that there is too much noise from both sides of the House. We want to hear what is being said. Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Batiste: On a point of order, My Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that Front Bench spokesmen give way a reasonable number of times? My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary allowed Opposition Members to intervene in his speech. Is it not provocative and an abuse of the procedures of the House that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) should plough through a written speech without giving way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the hon. Member who has the Floor at the time. It is difficult to hear what is being said in this short debate, and I hope that the remainder of the debate will be heard in silence.

Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) wishes to contribute to the debate, he has only to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should attend Mr. Deputy Speaker's office for some instruction on the code of practice that applies in the House. He is obviously not aware of it.
In the introduction to the code, the section on why there should be a code was largely redrafted in the course of a series of meetings with local authority associations. It now gives a more positive picture of the importance of good and effective publicity by local authorities. It recognises especially the political nature of local government. The fourth paragraph makes that point——

Mr. Patnick: rose——

Mr O'Brien: Note should be taken of the following section of the fourth paragraph of the introduction. I make the point for the benefit of Conservative Members who have little interest in local government. The principles
take account of the fact that some local authority publicity will deal with issues that are controversial because of particular local circumstances, or because of a difference of view between political parties locally or nationally. The

principles do not prohibit the publication of information on politically sensitive or controversial issues, nor stifle public debate.
That is the claim.Those two sentences are lifted from the local authority association's initial proposals for a code. But does the code measure up to the claim——

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will my hon. Friend expose the hypocrisy of Conservative Members? The Government have used massive resources in planting television programmes and putting over their policies. This has not been acceptable to the masses. Local authorities have been deprived of their traditional right to inform the public of their benefits and rights. That right is one of the best traditions of local government.

Mr. O'Brien: Conservative Members have asked me to give way, and I gave way to my hon. Friend, who made a valuable contribution to the debate. He has made it clear that local government publicity is for the benefit of the local electorate.
It is claimed in paragraph 5 that the code
is not concerned with the interpretation of section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986.
That section seeks to prohibit party political publicity. The code will, in the view of the local authority associations——

Mr. Patnick: rose——

Mr. O'Brien: —extend the prohibitions of the Act in practice. It should be remembered that the code
is concerned with all the other publicity which a local authority may publish.

Mr. Patnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I sit on the Opposition Benches, will the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) allow me to intervene?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman would not qualify to sit on the Opposition Benches.
It should be remembered that the code is concerned with all other publicity that a local authority may publish, including legal publicity. In practice, it will operate to prohibit such publicity.
Paragraph 4 of the code of recommended practice contains restrictive provisions. The Act provides that local authorities may publish information relating to their
function. Paragraph 4(iii) says:
local authorities should issue publicity only on matters that are directly relevant to their own functions.

Mr. Patnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) is patient, I will give way.
In discussions with officials, the associations were told that the intention is to control publicity that is legal under the Act but not appropriate in the view of Ministers.

Mr. John McWilliam: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is in order for the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) to read a newspaper in the Chamber? I think that it is not.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) is seeking to intervene. I think that he will do so in a moment.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the restriction on publicity mean that a proposal by British Rail to close a railway station or line, a proposal by the Post Office to close a village post office


or a proposal by a regional health authority to close a hospital will be prohibited under the code? We have been discussing the final stages of the poll tax Bill. Will local authorities be able to publish information about how the poll tax will affect the people they represent? The restriction under the code will prevent people being made aware of how the poll tax will affect the disabled, the chronically sick and the poor.

Mr. Patnick: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I thought that my time would never come.
I have here the City of Sheffield News, which costs £100,000 to publish. According to my hon. Friend the Minister, this legislation does not prevent it being published. The top of page 3 mentions the community charge. The bottom of the page states:
The Beginner's Guide to the Poll Tax (illustrated) is available from the communications unit at the Town Hall" in Sheffield. Such articles bring local government into disrepute and are the reason for this code of practice.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Member makes the point that I was seeking to make. Will publicity giving information to the people of Sheffield be prevented by the code of practice? Sheffield council wishes to advise its ratepayers and council house tenants about what is happening in Sheffield. I assume that the Minister will say that the Government do not intend to stop local authorities issuing information in such circumstances. The inclusion of paragraph 4 (iii) means that local authorities will be inhibited from doing so, especially when there is not unanimity in a local authority.
Paragraph 4 refers only to public authorities of various types. Presumably it would not apply to publicity by British Telecom, British Gas or other services in local authority areas.
The code should not attempt to inhibit local authorities' legitimate role as the voice of the communities they serve. Paragraph 4 provides reasons enough for Parliament not to approve the code. I draw Conservative Members' attention to it.
Although patronising, paragraphs 5 to 10 are now acceptable to local authorities, but they perhaps provide an opportunity to contrast the modest extent and cost of local authority publicity advertising with the massive expansion of central Government advertising, particularly on matters of political controversy, on the most expensive medium—television. Hon. Members must have witnessed the expense to which the Government have gone in the sale of public utilities and the amount they have spent to prevail on their supporters to buy them. The same will happen again with the privatisation of water.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman has just said that the Government are trying to prevail on their supporters to buy shares in public utilities. Will he explain why the chief Labour whip on Derbyshire county council bought two lots of British Telecom shares?

Mr. O'Brien: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman asks whoever it was who bought the shares. I cannot explain that. But I say that the real purpose behind the sale of national assets is to line the pockets of Conservative Members' supporters.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: rose——

Mr. O'Brien: Like paragraph 15, paragraph 19 has been amended following meetings with the Minister. It now acknowledges that publicity campaigns
about the authority's policies in relation to that function and the reasons for them
can be appropriate.
As for dissemination, the Government have not responded to the points made by local authority associations that positive reference should be made in paragraph 21 to the particular needs of ethnic minority communities whose first language is not English, and that material should be provided in other languages as appropriate to the communities served by local authorities——

Mr. Bill Michie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you ask the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) to stop reading the newspaper?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The reading of a newspaper is welcome only if it is relevant to the debate. I am referring to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick). The reading of a newspaper in the Chamber is not welcome unless the hon. Gentleman expects to speak and refer to it.

Mr. O'Brien: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).

Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend realise that when I and my hon. Friends have written to the Minister and his colleagues about the poll tax legislation they have usually sent us back not one but four or five copies of their booklet about it? I now have 227 spare copies on my desk. And most of the contents are untrue, anyway.

Mr. O'Brien: I hope that the Minister has taken note of that.
The Minister said that it was not desirable to include a positive suggestion for good practice such as the one I mentioned for assisting ethnic minority groups. What then is the purpose of a code of practice—merely to inhibit the presentation of information?
In the context of recruitment advertising, the Widdicombe committee accepted that people might be employed by councils as political assistants to politicians. The most cost-effective way to recruit staff such as that suggested by Widdicombe is through party political publications. A blanket prohibition on the use of party political publications for recruitment and advertising is not desirable.
Paragraphs 39 to 42 of the report suggest a simple provision. It is that local authorities should not issue publicity that simply reports the views of individual members or their activities except when they are acting in an official capacity. That is how I sum up those four paragraphs. The future ability of council press officers to deal professionally with press and other media people who, quite understandably, are constantly seeking statements and quotes from identifiable people—in this case councillors—must be contrasted with the freedom of central Government press officers, especially in No. 10 and in Government Departments, to personalise even the most political, controversial statements by Ministers. There must be some parity between local and central government on this issue. Against that background I ask the House to reject the order.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I came to the debate expecting to hear some encouraging news from the Government. I have read the guidance notes with which we have been provided and find them the most wet and inadequate guidelines that I have ever seen. I listened to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) who opposes the guidelines and who spoke at enormous length. I have searched to find out why he opposes them but can find no extra powers or sanctions. It is made clear in the first paragraph of the notes that they are only for guidance. That means that a local authority could happily carry on doing the things that I think all my hon. Friends have complained about.
When we look through the code of practice we see that some types of advertising are intrusive and we are told that advertising should be cost effective. That does not tell us much that we do not already know. Let us have a look at what is happening in Cleveland. Today, Cleveland county council appointed Vincent Hanna to operate its public relations. It already has a large public relations department which is inadequate to the task of whitewashing the county in the light of the Butler-Sloss inquiry. It will not tackle the real issues raised in the learned judge's report, but will seek to do a nice cover-up job and get Mr. Bishop and the other members of the social services department out with a nice clean bill of health. The council has had to go outside the county to get a nice glitzy outfit from London to come to Cleveland to manage our PR because it is not prepared to address the real issues.
Let us look at the other complaints by my hon. Friends about local authority publicity. A book list has been provided for lesbians by Lambeth borough council so that lesbians will have a guide to good reading. What has that to do with the ratepayers of Lambeth or anywhere else? Why should such a list be provided by a local authority? In the code of practice I found one point about not promoting immorality. That is weak and, as I have said, the code of practice is only for guidance.

Mr. Patnick: Can my hon. Friend tell me what sanctions are available to people who feel that somehow a council has gone wrong? To whom do such people appeal and what sanctions and fines, if any, can be imposed?

Mr. Devlin: We have enacted some legislation banning party political propaganda, but it does not cover the range of subjects about which local authorities can promote their political views.
Each month "Middlesbrough News" pumps out Labour party propaganda and its distributors make sure that it goes through every door in the city. That paper also ensures that every piece of Government legislation, which is designed to benefit Middlesbrough, such as the inner urban programme and the urban development corporation, is carefully disguised as an achievement of the Labour council. There is no redress against such action.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government have already passed legislation to ensure that it is illegal for certain literature to influence support for political parties. The hon. Gentleman cannot complain about such literature when the remedy lies with him or someone else who can

make a complaint to the courts. If that complaint were upheld, the hon. Gentleman's arguments would be more credible.

Mr. Devlin: It depends whether the literature is specifically party political, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware from some of the publications that are pushed out in Bermondsey that that is not always the case.
I asked my hon. Friend the Minister a number of questions and I shall conclude by asking one of the Opposition. Would they object if the Government started to take half-page advertisements in "Conservative Newsline"?

Ms. Diane Abbott: I speak with rather more information and experience than some hon. Members as I was a Lambeth council press officer. I believe that it would help our debate if hon. Members were more honest, because there is no doubt that the intention of the code is to stop and block some of the successful, and legal, publicity campaigns that Labour authorities have run in the past. One such campaign was that run by the Greater London council about what its abolition would mean. The code means to stop such campaigns.
Conservative Members strike a moral attitude about spending public money for party political purposes, but we would take them more seriously if they spoke with similar vehemence about the way in which the Government have spent public money for such purposes. Consider the millions of pounds that were spent promoting the Telecom flotation and other privatisation ventures. The Scottish Office is just about to spend a huge amount on promoting Government activities in Scotland. We could point to the advertising campaign on the poll tax proposals.

Mr. Corbyn: What about Ministry of Defence advertising?

Ms. Abbott: That is another example.
If all those examples do not amount to spending public money for party political purposes, I do not know what does. As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has said, all we ask for is parity between national and local practice in this matter. If it is well and good for the Scottish Office to promote its activities by using advertising agencies, why is it wrong for local authorities to follow a parallel practice?

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have deliberately given an awful lot of business to particular advertising agencies, which seem to have extremely close relationships with the Tory party, and taken work away from the well-qualified and experienced staff employed by the Central Office of Information? Does my hon. Friend agree that that might have happened because the professional standards of the COI were being undermined by the blatantly party-political nature of the Ministry of Defence advertisements, the 1992 Euro-market advertisements and the publicity that has been produced, at great expense, to con people into believing that there is genuine training for our young people when, in reality, such training is merely workfare?

Ms. Abbott: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. The Government nationally have spent millions of pounds of public money for party political purposes. There is nothing in this code to deal with that.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does the hon. Lady recognise the difference between the Government putting out information about legislation, about which, therefore, the public need information, and political campaigns designed to influence people's opinions, which is what the GLC sought to do when the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was in office? I draw her attention to page 258 of "If Voting Changed Anything They'd Abolish It", written by the hon. Gentleman, which states:
We started working with CND and switched the Government funds we received for war preparations"—
he means civil defence—
into the campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
That is a clear sign of the misuse of public money to sway political opinion. That is not information.

Ms. Abbott: Were not the millions of pounds of public money spent on advertising the Telecom flotation used to influence the country to become a nation of small shareholders for a clear political purpose? That was an unprecedented use of public money for privatisation. Some of the speeches and interventions of Conservative Members are sheer hypocrisy.

Mr. Devlin: Does the hon. Lady accept that in advertising the privatisation of British Telecom the Government had a duty to the taxpayers to get the best possible return for the sale of that asset?

Ms. Abbott: The Government might have served taxpayers better not by spending millions of pounds with advertising agencies, but by promoting the shares in the normal way.

Mr. McWilliam: Does my hon. Friend accept that the advertising of British Telecom was in all senses against all the tenets and codes of the advertising industry and that all the consumers of BT have suffered? Does she agree that the propaganda put out by the Conservative Government in those advertisements had nothing to do with consumers and everything to do with the benefit of those who sought to make a capital gain from that advantage?

Ms. Abbott: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I have established that the speeches of Conservative Members are riddled with hypocrisy and that the Government set the record for spending public money for party political purposes.
A Government who have the confidence that their policies can take the cold light of fact should not be frightened of local authority publicity about their policies. If Conservative Members cannot win by fair means, they wish to win by foul. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) complained that people were not willing to listen to him at public meetings and asked the Minister for legislation to stop him being shouted down. The remedy is to make better, more effective and more compelling speeches. If the Government cannot win public debate, they seek to shackle their opponents, and this is an example of that.

Mr. Batiste: I congratulate the hon. Lady on having the courage to give way—something which was conspicuously absent from her Front-Bench colleague.
Does the hon. Lady accept that, in principle, there should be restrictions, either in convention or in statute, on any sort of publicity by local authorities?

Ms. Abbott: Yes, of course. As a local authority press officer, I worked under the terms of section 6 of the Local Government Act 1986, which is against any communication designed to affect public support for a political party. That is fair and that is the law. A great deal said by Conservative Members has been nonsense, because the law is already clear about prohibiting party political publicity. Every press release, every advertisement, and every note to editors that I put out when I worked for local authorities—all local authority press officers work in the same way—was cleared by lawyers to ensure that it did not fall foul of the law. The 1986 Act is clear and all local authorities scrupulously adhere to it.
We have a Government who, if they cannot win by fair and open means in debate, wish to win by foul. This code is partisan in origin, it will be partisan in interpretation, and it is only too clearly targeted not at abuses of press and publicity, but at the effective light that some Labour authorities have shed on the real effects of Tory policies. If Conservative Members were proud of those policies and felt that they could be defended, they would have nothing to fear from local authority publicity within the terms of the 1986 Act.

Mr. David Wilshire: As I was in local government for 11 years before coming to the House, I deeply regret that this code of conduct has become necessary. It is yet another example of central Government being forced to act by the antics of a few. When that happens, the whole of local government suffers because the militant few in some councils are not prepared to abide by the traditional approaches that have served local government so well.
Opposition Members were earlier calling for examples, and I have some splendid news for them—I have quite a few. We must examine why the code has become necessary. The issues of great concern were dealt with in the Local Government Act 1986, which tackled blatant party political propaganda support of one particular party, on the rates. I shall highlight two further concerns. First, there is the misuse of public money—an unacceptable use of money for purposes which should not be allowed in local government—and, secondly, there is a waste of public money—spending too much or spending it badly. Together they undermine local democracy and divert money from essential services.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the code identifies nine different misuses of public money over and above the promotion of a political party, four of which especially worry me. The first is the spending of ratepayers' money to publicise an issue which has nothing to do with that local authority. I shall cite the example of Hackney, which has a 14-page booklet entitled, "Hackney Council and the Police—Fact and Fiction". Hackney is not a police authority, and the Metropolitan police has no links with Hackney borough council. An examination of the booklet shows that it has nothing much to do with the policing of Hackney, but it has everything to do with a campaign to politicise the Metropolitan police.

Ms. Abbott: I must set the record straight. Hackney is a borough in which law and order is a matter of concern for all of its citizens, and the council has a locus in these matters, gives advice and information and has a police committee. To say that policing has nothing to do with Hackney is both a disgrace and arrant nonsense.

Mr. Wilshire: I refer the hon. Lady to the law of the land. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, not the Hackney borough council, is the police authority.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: My hon. Friend is talking about how councils waste ratepayers' money by dealing with national issues. Norwich city council is always wasting ratepayers' money, and takes up council time by debating national issues that have nothing to do with local government. That is just another example to back up what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful for that example.
The second of the examples of misuse of money—

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has chosen a poor example, because the Home Secretary is constantly pushing police to have closer working relations with local authorities in London. In those circumstances, is it not highly appropriate that the London borough of Hackney, like any other borough, should have a police committee, should express its views on law and order and crime, and should advise its citizens accordingly?

Mr. Wilshire: It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said, because this booklet is basically a campaign to politicise the Metropolitan police.
The second example of the misuse of money about which I am concerned is the use of money for biased recruitment advertisements. Haringey placed advertisements for 11 policy officers who were to report to Labour chairmen of committees. The advertisements said that these policy officers would have to be
keenly aware of your responsibilities to your chairs' views at meetings.
That is blatantly politically biased.

Mr. Patnick: My hon. Friend may be aware that Mr. Steve King, a former leader of Haringey council, from 1985 to 1987, said:
The Council's publicity section was strengthened and given a clear political brief. A Publicity Coordinating Committee was set up consisting, uniquely, of Councillors, Labour Party representatives, trade unions and the voluntary sector.
That quote is from the Labour Briefing of 26 January 1987.

Mr. Wilshire: I thank my hon. Friend for that example.
My third example of the misuse of council funds for publicity is of local authorities that choose to fund publicity for outside bodies that are not connected with the council. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) hinted at this earlier, and I can give a specific example. I have here a leaflet from the Hounslow co-operative funeral service, which sets out the funeral services that it offers and its prices, and on the back it invites one to fill out one's name and address to get its services. That leaflet is paid for, and the small print says so, by the ratepayers of Hounslow borough council. That is not a proper use of ratepayers' money.
My fourth example concerns moral standards. The code says clearly that publicity must not undermine moral standards. However, Lambeth borough council has

produced a booklist of "Stories and Poems by and about Lesbian women", and has done so with ratepayers' money. The introduction says:
The aim of this list is to introduce the general reader to some of the best Lesbian stories and poetry.
I would contend that that is publicity aimed at undermining moral standards.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he was given the pamphlet and that he did not purchase it?

Mr. Wilshire: I confirm that it was given away, at the ratepayers' expense, to those who go to the library. It is a library listing, encouraging people to borrow certain books.
I refer now to the waste of public money by spending too much of other people's money on what is quite legitimate publicity and by undertaking unnecessary publicity to disguise either a grant or a subsidy. There is time only to give a couple of examples at this late hour.
In terms of poor value for money, I accept that publicity is necessary, but I ask hon. Members to consider the situation in Ealing late last year. It was decided to take away a £2,000 contract to have posters put up in the borough. The council chose to spend £16,000 employing somebody who provided a van to do the self-same job. That is legitimate publicity with public money being wasted.
Another example of a disguised subsidy and waste of money occurred in Lewisham last year. The council decided to spend £16,000 advertising jobs in the News on Sunday. That newspaper subsequently failed. It was a rotten place to advertise. There were seven replies for 17 posts. It was perfectly clear that the £16,000 was nothing more than a subsidy and a wrong use of publicity money.
The code is regrettably necessary. Publicity is being used for unacceptable purposes, and other people's money is being wasted by local councillors. It is important to understand that the code is not a blanket ban, despite what we have heard from Opposition Members. It allows local government to publicise services and policies. Interestingly, and contrary to what we have heard from Opposition Members, it allows local authorities to publicise controversial matters. But it states that that sort of publicity must be objective, fair and, above all else, balanced.

Dr. John Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his points would carry greater weight if he had found time to mention the most corrupt element among present-day advertising, which is the blurring of the distinction between the state and the Conservative party? I refer to two separate examples. The first is British Steel advertising, which goes out of its way to praise the conduct of the Conservative Government, and the second is the point that in every single 1992 advertisement prominent people appeared as huge direct benefactors of the Conservative party.

Mr. Wilshire: The point that I find absolutely fascinating is that virtually every Opposition intervention has sought to muddy the water by getting away from local government. We have heard no justification of what local government is doing.
Apart from the fact that we are not dealing with a blanket ban, when considering the code of conduct, it is important also to understand that the great majority of local authorities will be unaffected by it, because they have


not done, and are not doing, anything to offend against it. The target of the code is clear. The antics of the lunatic few on the Left—those who use publicity to waste other people's money, those who use publicity to undermine values, those who use money to discredit their opponents—are a disgrace.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilshire: No, I shall not give way. I wish to make one last point.
The militant few are wrecking local government. The publicity antics of the militant few must stop. They are an absolute scandal.

Ms. Joyce Quin: The Government's proposed code of practice, which seeks to govern local authority advertising, is a fine example of double standards. Local authority advertising is to be strictly controlled. We must see this in conjunction with the 1986 Act and the other measures that the Government have taken to try to curb local authorities and their advertising. Local authority advertising is to be controlled at a time when national Government advertising has been allowed without any check or independent control over the propriety of such advertising.
Paragraph 3 of the code makes the point that expenditure on publicity by some local authorities has been significant. Local authority spending on advertising has not increased fourfold in the past four years, as has happened with Government advertising. In answer to a parliamentary question by me it was revealed that, although the Department of Trade and Industry had spent an average of just over £1 million a year in each of the five years between 1979–80 and 1986–87, that figure has shot up to nearly £8 million in 1987–88, and it continues to rise.
The Department of Trade and Industry—the "Department for Enterprise" as the glossy advertisements tell us—is spending £9·4 million on the single European market and £5·6 million on the enterprise initiative campaign. Every time we switch on our television sets we are assailed by the Government's advertisements. At the same time, they are seeking to curb local authority spending.

Mr. Batiste: Does the hon. Lady accept that it is vital for the future of jobs and British industry that people are as aware as possible of the opportunities and challenges of 1992 and that the best way of achieving that is to advertise in the media, where it will have most impact? That is not party political.

Ms. Quin: Not only the Labour party but a wide group believe that Government advertising has become much more party political.
The standards of Government advertising are inadequately controlled. The Minister referred to the Widdicombe conventions. They are nothing more than a voluntary code of practice on which the Government Department doing the advertising has the final word. There is nothing like the control over local authorities that the Government are seeking to introduce via this code.

Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Lady has been critical of Government advertising. What did she think of the BP advertisements which appeared in newspapers in 1978,

when the Labour Government were busy selling their BP shares because they had to raise money to pay for their overspending?

Ms. Quin: The hon. Gentleman seems to have had to go back some time to get that example. Such advertisements would not fill people with the repugnance that they feel at the advertisements on television for the social fund, whereby the Government have tried to con people into believing that the social fund gives people opportunities. We know that it makes people borrow at a time of great need and hardship.
It seems that the Government wish to be lord and master over their advertising and also to be lord and master over that of local authorities. The Government are especially keen to do that in those local authorities which, because of democratic elections, have a majority of Labour councillors. The Government's attitude is just part of the trend towards centralisation and authoritarianism. These measures should be strongly resisted, not just by the Opposition parties, but by ail who value freedom and the right of local authorities, democratically elected, to run their affairs within their field of competence. I hope that the opposition to the code and the proposals will be heard loudly inside and outside the House.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I must admit that when I read the code I had some reservations about some aspects of it. Having heard the Opposition's complaints about it, however, I now have no doubt that we should support it wholeheartedly.
Derbyshire county council provides us with some serious examples of bad practice in this matter. We often hear about what some of the loony Left authorities in London are doing, but we do not hear about what is happening in the rest of the country. Derbyshire county council issued a leaflet entitled "Reforming Schools—the True Facts Behind the Education Bill". It so happens that the leaflet, in the new Labour party colours, was distributed to children in every school throughout the country. I received letters from worried parents about this form of unsolicited propaganda peddling.

Mr. Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: No. A number of hon. Members want to speak.
One parent wrote:
Why was the letter delivered to me through my seven year old daughter being given the letter and pamphlet at school without the same even being put in an envelope? Was it intended that the letter and pamphlet should be read by my daughter?
Another parent wrote:
Frankly, I was disgusted that my son, aged 5, was used to further the socialist ends of the County Council in bringing home this letter"—
—[Interruption.] I am rather surprised that the Opposition should find this so funny——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear, even to someone as thick-skinned as me, that he does not propose to give way.

Mr. McLoughlin: If the Opposition were really interested in good local government practice, they would find this example offensive, as I do, but Opposition Members only laugh and shout about it.
The parent wrote:
Frankly, I was disgusted that my son, aged 5, was used to further the socialist ends of the County Council in bringing home this letter and leaflet, both of which give a very biased view of the possible effects of the Government's proposed legislation. The letter and leaflet are nothing short of propaganda, and I feel that it is totally unnecessary to use children in this way.
I could quote other letters, but I shall not because of the lack of time.

Mr. Boyes: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on a leaflet issued by Wandsworth council, of which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment was a leader? It was quoted on 10 December 1985 in Standing Committee A:
'£5,000 Making your Dream Home Competition. Listed in the boxes below are six home improvement projects that council tenants can undertake if they buy their own homes under the "Right to Buy" scheme. Simply list the improvements in order of popularity by putting "1" against the project you consider to be the most popular, and then numbering down to the least important, at 6.'"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1985; c. 108.]
Entrants were asked to send their replies to the "House Sales Contest". What would the hon. Gentleman say if a Labour council was offering £5,000 prizes for such projects? He knows full well that it is absolute nonsense.

Mr. McLoughlin: I have not seen the leaflet and I cannot, and do not intend to, comment on it.
I wish to draw to the Minister's attention something that the county council proposes to do in the near future. One of the things that worries me is that, while the code may lay down the lines along which county councils can spend, Derbyshire county council intends to give £50,000 next week to the National Council for Civil Liberties and we do not know what sort of campaign the NCCL will conduct or what sort of leaflets it will issue. We know, however, that 14 fact sheets have been proposed on topics ranging from police questioning to aspects of section 28 of the Local Government Act, the poll tax and equal opportunities.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend include in his list of the misuses of ratepayers' money on publicity the investment of £305,000 made by Derbyshire county council from its pension fund in the failed Left-wing newspaper News on Sunday, the slogan of which was
No tits but lots of balls"?
Is that included in my hon. Friend's list of political spending?

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend knows as well as I do—and this has been confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—that a full day's debate would not give enough time, let alone one this short, to draw out some of the lunacies that we in Derbyshire county have to suffer. We certainly suffer the highest rates.
I am concerned that the code does not go far enough. It may be all right in the short term but we may have to return to it. There is something very wrong in the way that ratepayers' money has been used in the way that it has on many occasions, and without there being any proper recourse or opportunity for questioning it. I know that reference can be made to the district auditor, but on those

occasions when I have done so I have been advised that the auditor is not allowed to decide on the political nature of any campaign. He can only rule on its financial aspects and on whether or not they comply with the law. It is difficult to make a case that a particular campaign is out and out political propaganda.
I have reservations about the code, but the way in which the Opposition are complaining about it must mean that the code contains something that is good. Local government needs to achieve a reputation for good conduct and service to the community—not party politics. We only hear about the party political aspects from many local authorities, and I am grateful that the House will be approving the code this evening.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The premise that local authority publicity should be subject to some control is reasonable, and clearly it is right that local authorities should not abuse the opportunities that they have to make party political points. We have argued that in respect of two Bills over three or four years.
The question tonight is whether this code represents the right way forward. Although we are nearly at the end of this debate, several important points have not been made as clearly as they might. First, all local authority associations, having been consulted, are very clear that they can regulate these matters themselves, and they have asked that that be the case. If those associations—across all parties—believe that they do not need the Government to act, it is an arrogant assertion of responsibility to do so when the Government cannot prove that there is any explicit need.
Secondly, the House has not yet debated the Widdicombe report, nor have the Government made any response to it. The Widdicombe committee made it clear that self-regulation was the best way forward. It would have been better to have so ordered our affairs that we debated the basic principles on the basis of a report commissioned by the Government, rather than dealt with this code first.
Thirdly, the Minister has not made clear the status of the code, because it will not be enforceable in law. It is not something that one will be able to pray in aid in the courts and a breach of which will be deemed illegal. There is nothing illegal in the descriptions given in the code. It concerns itself with matters that are not "appropriate or desirable" in the view of Ministers, and is indicative only. Thus, it is clear that the code is neither fish nor fowl.
Fourthly, last week the Municipal Journal, which is not a party political document, made it very clear in its editorial that the code's wording is a legal minefield. The most obvious example is breach of moral standards. Who is to define them? They are not defined in the code, and there is no indication as to how they will be defined, even if the code is generally enforceable.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who is not in his place, argued that it was wrong for a local authority—and he cited Hackney—to deal with matters that are not directly the council's responsibility. For example, the code will forbid local authorities along the Thames from having any say in whether or not helicopters or helipads will be allowed there, yet they would considerably affect the environment of people living by the Thames. The code would preclude local authorities with


an active nuclear power station or one about to be built in their area from being able to comment or inform their constituents and ratepayers about it.

Mr. Chope: That is not correct. If the hon. Gentleman looks at paragraph 19 of the code he will see why.

Mr. Hughes: Paragraph 4 says:
In considering the subject areas in which publicity is to be issued, the following matters will be important … (iii) in areas where central government, another tier of local government, or another public authority have the primary service or policy responsibility, local authorities should issue publicity only on matters that are directly relevant to their own functions.
The reality is that nuclear power, heliports, and so on, are not directly relevant to their own functions and would possibly fall outside the code.
My next point—this has been put clearly already—is that it is hypocritical of the Government to say that there will be one law for them but a different law for us. The Government are spending more and more on their own publicity, which is not impartial. The noble Lord Young launched an enterprise initiative. The launch cost £36,000 and the stage was set in blue. That was in support of Government policy. We live in an age where the Government believe that it is sufficient for them to be able to argue their case by spending as much as possible while local councils cannot do anything that the Government think is inappropriate.

Dr. Reid: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it is not just the extent of the Government's expenditure——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 100.

Division No. 439]
[1.56 am


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Cope, Rt Hon John


Alexander, Richard
Cran, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Amos, Alan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arbuthnot, James
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dicks, Terry


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkins, Robert
Dover, Den


Atkinson, David
Durant, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fallon, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Farr, Sir John


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Tony


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fishburn, Dudley


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forman, Nigel


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Franks, Cecil


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butcher, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butterfill, John
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Howard, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kirkhope, Timothy





Knapman, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Squire, Robin


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stevens, Lewis


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Maclean, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Malins, Humfrey
Summerson, Hugo


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maples, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thorne, Neil


Maude, Hon Francis
Thurnham, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tracey, Richard


Miller, Sir Hal
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Sir Hector
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moss, Malcolm
Walden, George


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Waller, Gary


Neale, Gerrard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Neubert, Michael
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wheeler, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Whitney, Ray


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Paice, James
Wilshire, David


Patnick, Irvine
Wood, Timothy


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Yeo, Tim


Pawsey, James
Younger, Rt Hon George


Porter, David (Waveney)



Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Redwood, John
Mr. Richard Ryder and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Riddick, Graham



Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fyfe, Maria


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Galbraith, Sam


Barron, Kevin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Battle, John
Graham, Thomas


Beckett, Margaret
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hardy, Peter


Blair, Tony
Henderson, Doug


Boyes, Roland
Hinchliffe, David


Bradley, Keith
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Holland, Stuart


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Home Robertson, John


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ingram, Adam


Clay, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clelland, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lamond, James


Cohen, Harry
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Loyden, Eddie


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAllion, John


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Cummings, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dalyell, Tam
McLeish, Henry


Darling, Alistair
McWilliam, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Michael, Alun


Doran, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliott


Flynn, Paul
Mullin, Chris


Foster, Derek
Murphy, Paul






Nellist, Dave
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, William
Spearing, Nigel


Pike, Peter L.
Steinberg, Gerry


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Strang, Gavin


Primarolo, Dawn
Vaz, Keith


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wall, Pat


Redmond, Martin
Walley, Joan


Reid, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robertson, George
Wareing, Robert N.


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rooker, Jeff
Wilson, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Salmond, Alex
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity, which was laid before this House on 30th June 1988, be approved.

PETITIONS

Rating Reform

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am pleased to present the petition. It is fitting that I should do so on the day that consideration of the poll tax Bill has been concluded. Over 1,000 citizens have signed the petition, which has been collected by a group of individuals who are not members of any political party—Conservative, Liberal or Labour. These people are deeply concerned about the adverse effects and anti-democratic consequences of the poll tax.
The petition reads as follows:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of Bradford citizens sheweth that the proposed Poll Tax is unjust, will impose greater hardship on the poor, will damage democracy and will ignore ability to pay and calls upon Parliament to identify and implement a truly fair alternative to the present rating system.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House repeal the Poll Tax legislation and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray etc.
The petition represents the sensible road towards the repeal of the poll tax.

To lie upon the Table.

Nuclear Waste

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I beg to
ask leave to present a petition signed by 17,000 constituents from my constituency and that of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). The 17,000 are protesting at the possible dumping of nuclear waste by Nirex in the Wash area. They have the full support of my hon. Friend and me. The idea of the petition was that of my hon. Friend, and he will present a copy of it to Nirex.
Any attempt by Nirex to dump nuclear waste in the beautiful area of the Wash would have devastating effects on the environment, on tourism and on small businesses. It would be met by bitter opposition and resistance, supported by myself and my hon. Friend.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the constituents of North West Norfolk and South Lincolnshire, showeth, That we are strongly opposed to the dumping of nuclear waste in Norfolk and the Wash.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for the Environment not to implement any such proposals.
This is the first shot across Nirex's bows. As the
petition, which has been signed by 17,000 people, has been presented to the House, Nirex will be in no doubt about the strength of local opposition.

To lie upon the Table.

Ravenscraig Steelworks

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Dr. Jeremy Bray: We debated the future of Ravenscraig yesterday in the Scottish Grand Committee during the debate on industry in Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State has had an opportunity to read what my right hon. and hon. Friends and I said, and I have given him notice of further questions. If I take less than my allotted time, I hope that he will allow hon. Members to ask any further questions that might arise.
The impromptu statement, a fortnight ago, by Sir Robert Scholey that the closure of the hot mill at Ravenscraig in 1989 is "probable rather than possible" caused great concern in Scotland. The position has not been substantially changed by his letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland which he read to the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday—in which he said:
With the further strengthening of market conditions since December 1987, there is no reason for the Corporation at present to make plans to close the Ravenscraig strip mill.
Sir Robert Scholey did not spell out the details of production. plant loading and capacities since December 1987; I gave them in my speech in the Scottish Grand Committee. While hot-rolled coil production has been at 100 per cent. of manned capacity, and the Port Talbot hot mill has been working 21 shifts, the hot mills at Llanwern, Lackenby, and Ravenscraig have been working 15 shifts. If Llanwern and Lackenby increased to 21 shifts, on a strict pro rata basis, the production could have been achieved by loading the other mills at 99 per cent. of installed capacity and closing the Ravenscraig hot mill.
This allows nothing for the more difficult rolling programme at Ravenscraig, with electrical steels and small batches, and the loss of maintenance time on non-production shifts. The savings offered by the closure of the Ravenscraig hot mill would be minimal, as extra shifts would be required at Llanwern and Lackenby to replace those laid off at Ravenscraig. In practice, these circumstances justify the retention of the hot mill.
On the most generous interpretation, Sir Robert is saying in his letter that as long as those circumstances prevail there is no reason for British Steel to close the Ravenscraig hot mill. Amen. However, a temporary dip in the market, or the need for further investment in modernisation or major maintenance, would change the picture. British Steel has not changed its long-term view that there is one strip mill too many, or it would be announcing longer-term investment at Ravenscraig.
British Steel strip capacity is certainly still unbalanced. Continuous casting is the bottleneck. There is unused liquid steel capacity upstream, and unused rolling mill capacity downstream. There are minimal savings for British Steel in closing the Ravenscraig hot mill, but by closing it—I hope the Under-Secretary of State will note this—British Steel would ensure that when it had completed the continuous casting at Port Talbot and Llanwern there would not be a finishing mill which could take Ravenscraig's slabs, and the whole of Ravenscraig would be closed whatever the level of demand.
I repeat what I said in the Scottish Grand Committee: British Steel has a clear interest, with the degree of private monopoly power that it is being given as the sole United

Kingdom bulk steel producer, in restricting capacity and forcing up prices to the limit of what more distant European competition will allow, which is flatly contrary to the national interest in efficient competitive production.
It is up to the Government to act. I warned the Government yesterday of the consequences if they do not. Ministers will reflect on the effect on potential investors in British Steel of an unresolved industrial dispute going to the heart of the company's strategy. If at any stage British Steel wanted to close the Ravenscraig hot mill in pursuit of its restrictive strategy, while urgently requiring the rest of the works for some years until its capacity can be replaced elsewhere, British Steel would be vulnerable to industrial action only within Ravenscraig. Steel workers would act only if they knew they had the support of public opinion in Scotland and beyond, and if they knew they were acting in defence of the competitive steel industry that the country requires. During such a strike, British Steel would lose profits at a rate of £60 million a year, which would increase permanently to 160 million if it closed Ravenscraig prematurely and lost market share, as it did in 1980.
My guess is that, on reflection, British Steel will go ahead with the installation of continuous casting at Port Talbot and Llanwern and leave Ravenscraig intact, with the thought that it could eventually be closed in one piece. That, however, is not acceptable. British Steel needs further development both in new technology and in market share in Europe if manufacturing industry and the economy generally is to prosper. The current deficit in the balance of payments is ample evidence of that. Ravenscraig has a key role to play in the steel industry of the future that the country needs.
Whether by selling Ravenscraig and its finishing mills as a separate entity, by restrictions from non-competitive behaviour under United Kingdom or European Community oversight, or in some other way, the Government must act if they are to avoid a major miscalculation—of which they have been warned—about the future of British Steel, and about Ravenscraig in particular.
Why does the recent report by Warburg Securities, the broker advising the Government on British Steel, give no information about present capacities and outputs, let alone planned future capacities and investment requirements? Is that not relevant to expected profits? It even manages to leave Ravenscraig out as a supplier of steel to Shotton, although it is the principal supplier. Warburg told me that it was dependent on what British Steel and the Government told it. It does not seem able even to read the publications of the International Iron and Steel Institute. So much for informing the stock market of what the Government are offering.
Why does the claim to £1,870 million tax losses in the British Steel annual report make no reference to the fact that the taxpayer met those losses by payments to British Steel under section 18 of the Iron and Steel Act 1982? Will not the Secretary of State use his powers under the British Steel Bill to prevent those losses being transferred to the successor company? It was one thing while the corporation could be required to pay dividends to the Secretary of State on public dividend capital; it is quite another for British Steel plc, once privatised, to pay dividends to private shareholders, being exempt from payment of


corporation tax by virtue of tax losses which the Exchequer has already met by payments under section 18. That is outrageous behaviour by the Government.
Why have neither the Government, British Steel, nor any of their numerous agents said anything about the writ from the West German Iron and Steel Association before the European Court of Justice, lodged a fortnight ago, complaining about £900 million of unauthorised state aid having been given to British Steel? Are these facts not relevant to the privatisation of the steel industry?
Mr. Peter Sutherland, the member of the European Commission for competition policy, has said that the Commission will have to monitor closely the implementation of the various stages of the privatisation process before full clearance can be given. I shall make sure that the emerging British Steel strategy, which is restrictive and a grave threat to Ravenscraig, is drawn fully to his attention, but it would be more sensible for the Government to act first.

Dr. John Reid: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) for tailoring his speech to allow me to make a brief contribution. He speaks with great passion and knowledge on this matter. I shall confine myself to three points.
First, does the Minister appreciate that his handling of the future of the hot-strip mill has caused grave damage to whatever trust was left between the Government and those interested in maintaining the hot-strip mill and the Ravenscraig plant? As I have said before, there appears to have been suppression of information. It is quite incorrect for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and other Ministers to say that what Sir Robert Scholey said two weeks ago is exactly what they have said all along. That is not the case. Sir Robert is on record as advising us that he told the Government as far back as 3 December of the probable closure of the hot-strip mill. Despite persistent questioning in the House and elsewhere, information was intentionally suppressed and that has done even more damage to trust in the Government's intentions.
My second point is on the letter about which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South spoke in some detail. That letter was released yesterday by the Secretary of State for Scotland, having recently been received from Sir Robert Scholey. In certain quarters in Scotland there is a belief that that represents a reprieve for Ravenscraig and its hot-strip mill. That feeling is a direct result of the nature of the publicity given to that letter; publicity that was directed and to some extent orchestrated by the Government.
We say that nothing has changed as a result of the letter. It opens with the words, "I thought it would be helpful". If it is helpful to anybody, the only one to whom it can be helpful is the Secretary of State for Scotland, because it appears that the letter has no purpose other than to preserve the illusion that no decisions will be taken about Ravenscraig until after it passes out of public control. That illusion has been intentionally created so that Ministers can say, "We regret it very much, but there is nothing that we can do because it is now in the private sector."
That brings me to my third point. Government strategy is not only an abandonment of responsibility by Ministers, but in the long run can lead to worse trouble, not only for Ravenscraig, but for the whole of British Steel. I say that because over the past few years the work force and those who support Ravenscraig have been extremely careful to exert pressure only through politicians, public vehicles of protest or campaigns. They have done that because Ravenscraig is in the public sector.
The work force has maintained a high level of productivity and has eschewed industrial action that could damage either British Steel or the Ravenscraig plant. If the Government continue their present strategy, which appears to be to push all decisions aside until after the plant is out of the public domain so that they can then wash their hands of it, they will leave people with no alternative—since they have pushed the matter back purely into the industrial sphere—but to consider some form of industrial action. I say that, not as a threat or on the basis of any direct line to anyone or with any secrets, but as an appreciation of how people are beginning to perceive this matter.
If industrial action took place, it would be dangerous for Government Ministers and for Ravenscraig and the communities that we represent. It would also be dangerous for the whole of British Steel. Even at this late stage I ask the Government to pay attention to the matter and to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South. It is not impossible to resolve the difficulties. If we are to do that, we must eschew the tactics of the political fig leaf of vague communications and letters of intent. We must get down to the real problem, which is how to preserve a healthy, profitable and productive steel industry in Scotland, revolving around an integrated Ravenscraig plant.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): I have listened with great interest to the points raised by the hon. Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) and for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) who, on many occasions in the House and in Committee, have expressed their concern about Ravenscraig. The future of the Ravenscraig steelworks is obviously a matter of great importance. Therefore, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, has, at this late hour, and although he is not answering the debate, seen fit to be present. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I hope that the House appreciates his presence.
The position on the future of Ravenscraig is, however, wholly clear, and has been clear since December. By now hon. Members will be very familiar with the terms of the statement made by the chairman of British Steel on 3 December 1987 and conveyed to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. That statement seems quite unambiguous to me. My right hon. and learned Friend, when answering questions on his statement in the House, stated:
As to the future of the strip mill, it is not possible to look beyond 1989 at the moment. Nobody is saying that it will close; we are saying that at the moment British Steel faces a serious problem with excess capacity. As a result, it is under-utilising all its strip mills, which is damaging efficiency and cannot go on indefinitely unless the market improves. Against that background, it is good news that the corporation


has decided that the right commercial course is to keep them all going until at least 1989. It will then have to decide whether the position has improved and what it intends to do."—[Official Report, 3 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 1114.]
There is no question of the nature of the position having been concealed. I am tempted to agree with the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, who said that nothing has changed, because nothing has changed since my right hon. and learned Friend made his statement to the House. The chairman of BSC has given no evidence to the Government suggesting otherwise. His review of 23 June 1988 in the corporation's latest annual report and accounts makes specific reference to the 3 December statement.
Furthermore, Sir Robert Scholey has recently written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, as he informed the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday, reaffirming the December 1987 statement, and adding that, with the further strengthening of market conditions since then, there is no reason for the corporation, at present, to make plans to close the Ravenscraig strip mill. In his recent interviews, and subsequently in his letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, Sir Robert freely acknowledged BSC's dependence on the Ravenscraig steel-making plant, stating that British Steel has valuable assets in the Ravenscraig works for which it has a continuing need.
The position then is absolutely clear. British Steel continues to require Ravenscraig's steel-making capacity. No decision has been made to close any mill. The corporation will, however, need to keep the position under review in the light of market circumstances from time to time. I accept that this may not fully meet the concerns of those in Scotland who remain anxious about the future of Ravenscraig's strip mill, hut I fear that in the commercial world in which any company operates the future will always contain uncertainties. British Steel has gone as far as it can go to provide reassurances in the face of that uncertainty, but it is simply a commercial fact of life that it can go no further.
The British Steel Corporation remains fully committed to the successful operation of its Scottish plants for as long as there is a market need for their production. This is shown in the investment directed towards the plants. In 1987–88 alone, for example, British Steel invested about £20 million in the Ravenscraig complex. Of this, fully £2·6 million was spent on improving facilities at the hot-strip mill. This scarcely seems to constitute evidence of a plot to run down or abandon the Ravenscraig works, but rather the reverse. Indeed, even the Arthur Young report found that there was no need for further substantial investment in Ravenscraig in the next few years.
I should like to consider the particular points that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South raised about which, as we expected, he has given us as much notice as possible. The hon. Gentleman made reference to the Warburg Securities research circular on investment at Ravenscraig. That report, entitled "Winning the Battle for Efficiency", appeared earlier this month. I stress that that document was produced independently of British Steel and the Government—the hon. Gentleman also made reference to that—and that its contents, including opinions and projections, are entirely the responsibility of Warburg Securities. Therefore, I do not want to debate the detailed content of that report with the hon. Gentleman.

However, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern that the circular makes no direct reference to future investment at Ravenscraig. The Warburg document deals with future investment only in general terms, mentioning in passing only the most substantial likely future investment projects. Final decisions on these projects will be for the management of British Steel. As I have already mentioned, the Arthur Young report made it clear that there was no need for substantial investment in Ravenscraig in the next few years, so I do not find it surprising that the Warburg document made no reference to any such investment. There is nothing in any way sinister in that omission.
The hon. Gentleman referred to tax losses. British Steel's latest accounts show that the corporation has at present £1,870 million of accumulated tax losses. He may recall that the subject of tax losses was debated in Committee during the passage of the British Steel Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, explained in that debate that the provisions of clause 11(3) provided the Secretary of State with powers to direct, before privatisation, that the tax losses of British Steel shall be reduced by such an amount as he specifies. My hon. Friend said:
That power of direction is necessary to allow the Secretary of State to effect some reduction of tax losses inherited by the successor company to take account of the capital restructuring provided for in the Bill. The purpose of the direction is to ensure that the company is not placed in an unduly favourable tax position. To the extent that the Secretary of State directs that the inherited tax losses be reduced, the successor company will pay more tax than the corporation would have done had vesting and the associated arrangements not taken place."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 April 1988; c. 718.]
Decisions have not yet been taken on the extent of any reduction in British Steel's tax losses, and I can do no mu re than note what the hon. Gentleman said.
The hon. Gentleman raised the German Iron and Steel Confederation's allegations that the BSC received more aid between 1980 and 1985 than was necessary for its restructuring programme, and more aid than was authorised by the Commission. We are convinced that there is no substance in those allegations. The European Commission has already firmly rebutted the first allegation, and we are confident that it will equally rebut the second. The facts are that the Commission approved the aid given to the BSC as part of the corporation's major restructuring programme. The BSC has received no Government subsidies since 1985, and all aid paid to the BSC by the Government before that date was approved by the Commission.

Dr. Bray: Do the two not interact, in that the tax losses allowed to the successor company would be construed as state aid if they were in any way over-generous?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will recall that we discussed this at length in Committee and came to the general conclusion that, while there may have been a difference of opinion on the style and method of what we sought, there was agreement. that no state aids were involved. It seems, from the good support given by the Commission, that it does not believe that the Government or the BSC have transgressed. We, the BSC and, it appears, the Commission believe that the German case is


unfounded, so we shall rebut that claim. While it is a concern that it should exist, we have no doubt that this will eventually come out right.
I fully appreciate the strength of and the reasons for the concern felt by those most involved with Ravenscraig. But I do not feel that the concern can be met by artificial restrictions on British Steel as it returns to the private sector, or by proceeding to privatisation with a different configuration from that proposed. British Steel has given as full a statement of its expectations about the future of Ravenscraig and its strip mill as the uncertainties of the market place will allow. Subject to market conditions, it expects to require Ravenscraig's steelmaking and continuous casting into the mid-1990s. The hot-strip mill will stay open at least until next year, and British Steel has recently reiterated that it sees no reason to make any plans for its closure at present. There can be no unconditional guarantees in the commercial world. British Steel has given its clear and honest expectation. No more can reasonably be expected.

Dr. Bray: Before the Under-Secretary of State sits down, I wonder whether he could deal with the main issue, to which he has not responded. British Steel, as a private monopoly bulk steel producer in the United Kingdom, has

a clear interest in restricting capacity and forcing up prices to the limit of what more distant European competition will allow. To correct that bias in its market power requires some action from the Government, which could take many forms. We propose the competitive structure, with Ravenscraig and its finishing mills being a separate entity, but a reference could be made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, or some action could be taken by the European Community, because of competition. If the Government simply leave the position with British Steel able to exercise a monopoly power, contrary to the interests of the workers and the needs of steel customers in this country, they must accept the consequences that will follow. Is there nothing that the Under-Secretary of State can say about that?

Mr. Atkins: I had sat down, but because of the courtesy with which the hon. Gentleman has approached this matter, I shall try to answer his question. We have always made it clear that we do not believe that there is a monopoly. We have suggested that a substantial amount of steel is being imported into this country, so there is not a monopoly. Therefore, we do not accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman puts his case.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Three o'clock.